Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

A55, Bodelwyddan

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many casualties, fatal and non-fatal, have occurred in the past five years on the A55 road at Bodelwyddan.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. John Stradling Thomas): There have been eight fatal and 46 non-fatal casualties. My right hon. Friend has written to my hon. Friend explaining measures put in hand following advice from the county council.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I offer my hon. Friend the warmest possible congratulations on his accession to high office and his emergence from the dark dens off the Members' Lobby.

Mr. Harrison: This is not promotion; it is demotion from the Whips Office.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I assure my hon. Friend that he will have the sympathy and support of Conservative Members and a great deal of sympathy and affection from hon. Members on both sides of the House.—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Will the Minister give me his assurance that, in view of these terrifying figures, he will personally ensure that long-term measures to divert the A55 away from the village will not be allowed to slip back in the programme?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for those kind words of welcome on my first appearance at the Dispatch Box in my new role. The Government are pressing on as rapidly as possible to the long-term solution to this problem, which will be the bypass.

Mr. Abse: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will call the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), but I remind him that the question relates to the A55.

Mr. Abse: The Minister has made a serious omission from these sad figures. Does he agree that, as a result of what has happened this weekend and the conspiracy between the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales, two further casualties have taken place in north Wales? I am referring to the independent-minded Tory Members who are being murdered by the Secretary of State and his gang.

Mr. Stradling Thomas: There is much sympathy for many hon. Members who are facing such problems. However, they are not part of the responsibility of the Welsh Office.

Employment Statistics

Mr. Hudson Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current level of unemployment in (a) Wales and (b) Mid-Glamorgan; and what are the corresponding figures for the same dates in 1982 and 1981, respectively.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): On 10 February 1983 unemployed claimants totalled 178,077 in Wales, compared with 165,170 and 137,312 in February 1982 and 1981 respectively. On 10 February 1983 the number of unemployed claimants in mid-Glamorgan was 33,440. Earlier comparable figures are not available, but in February 1982 and 1981 the number of unemployed registrants totalled 33,686 and 27,809 respectively.

Mr. Hudson Davies: Does the Secretary of State agree that the figures show an unemployment rate for mid-Glamorgan of 17 per cent.? Will he take note that In the Bargoed travel-to-work area in my constituency the current figure is 20 per cent. unemployed—one in five? Nearly every house has someone unemployed residing within it. Will the Minister consider this, not from a political stance, but on grounds of pure humanity, as a problem which he could and should do something to solve?

Mr. Edwards: I confirm the figures. I have not checked the detailed statistics. The Government share the hon. Member's concern about the figures. I have described to the House on numerous occasions—as recently as the last Welsh day debate—the measures that are being taken. I have noted the measures proposed by the Social Democrats. They do not appear to be radical. A high spot among the proposals is that the Government should eliminate the jobs tax imposed by a previous Labour Cabinet of which the leaders of the hon. Gentleman's party were prominent members.

Mr. Hooson: Does my right hon. Friend agree with Chancellor Helmut Kohl who said yesterday that the market economy, and not the state, has the best remedies for unemployment?

Mr. Edwards: I entirely agree. The most encouraging feature of the present very difficult circumstances in Wales is that, despite the severity of the recession, many new companies have been setting up in, and moving into, Wales, which suggests that as we move out of the recession Wales will be extremely well placed to take advantage of the upturn and the successes of the market economy.

Mr. Alec Jones: Do not the figures that the Secretary of State has given the House show clearly that if we leave matters to market forces unemployment in Wales is unlikely to be reduced? Will he confirm that, despite the figures that he gave, the seasonal trend of unemployment is still upwards and that even if we manage to continue the monthly reduction of unemployment by 2,500, which apparently occurred last month, it will still take about four years to get back to the employment levels that existed when the right hon. Gentleman took office?

Mr. Edwards: Of course we are all concerned with high unemployment in the recession. The problem can be found in many countries. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is as pleased as I am that there was a reduction in unemployment last month. I believe that the fact that unemployment has risen so much less severely in Wales than in other parts of the United Kingdom during the recession and that we have been successful in changing our industrial base during that time offers considerable hope for the future. Certainly there are no easy solutions, and that must be apparent to the representative of a party that has found unemployment higher when leaving office on every occasion that it has been in government since the war.

Pupil-Teacher Ratios

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the pupil-teacher ratio in primary schools in Wales at the most recent count; and how this compares with the ratio in 1978

Mr. John Stradling Thomas: The ratio was 21·9:1 in January 1982 compared with 22·6:1 in 1978

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures show a satisfactory improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio over the past four years? Do they not belie the Opposition's gloomy propaganda about education in Wales?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I agree with my hon. Friend. The comparisons with previous years and with the ratio in England are very good.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the improved figures are due entirely to falling rolls? As many teachers are on the dole, would it not be a good idea to put them back into the classrooms to reduce the ratio further and to give our youngsters the same opportunities that are available in schools in the private sector which can buy better pupil-teacher ratios? Is that not the best way forward?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: There will be a possibility of increased teacher training in future. It is a matter that we have very much in mind. When economic circumstances allow we should like to reduce the number of unemployed teachers as rapidly as possible. That is our policy.

Mr. Coleman: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. We hope that he will have a happy sojourn at the Welsh Office. We should like to make it a short one, but we wish him well and are glad to see him here.
About 2,000 teachers are unemployed in Wales. If we employed them, what improvements would there be in the pupil-teacher ratio and in educational standards?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: The hon. Gentleman knows that recent reports have shown that educational standards are being maintained. That has been made clear by the HMI reports, and it is generally accepted in the profession. The fall in resources has been nothing like comparable with the reduction in rolls. We are giving attention to those matters and we shall continue to maintain standards in Welsh education.

Transport Needs

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether, in the light of the recommendations of the Serpell report, he will take the initiative in convening a conference of management, unions, local authorities and transport users to discuss the future transport needs of Wales.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I have no immediate plans to do so.

Mr. Anderson: The Secretary of State will know of proposals by the Welsh counties and the Wales Consumer Council for a move towards a Welsh transport administration. What is his reaction to those proposals? In view of anxieties about the future of the central Wales line, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that if, by some mischance, his party is returned at a general election the future of that line will be guaranteed?

Mr. Edwards: No proposals have been made in the Serpell report or elsewhere for closing any lines. The Government's position has been made plain. We have no proposals at the present time for any such changes, so there is no need to refer to a hypothetical situation. As for future changes in the organisation, these are matters that we keep continually under review. There is to be a conference of local authorities and others, to which I shall send observers, and we shall listen to any suggestions made during the debates that will undoubtedly take place over a considerable period on the information contained in the Serpell report.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State not appreciate that the people of Wales will be alarmed to hear him say that there are no proposals "at the present time" for any railway closures in Wales? Is he aware of the report in The Guardian, following publication of the Serpell report, that the Treasury is waiting until after the general election before bringing forward closure proposals? The right hon. Gentleman is shaking his head, but will he give a categoric assurance that the Government do not intend, either before or after an election, to close any of the railway lines in Wales marked for closure in the Serpell report?

Mr. Edwards: I do not think that any Government of any party at any time can guarantee that for the future and for ever there will be no change in the services provided. The Serpell report has provided much useful information which will be invaluable in the continuing debate about the sort of transport services that we require, and it should be part of our consideration of those issues to look again at the organisation within Wales and outside and consider the priorities and needs. I shall be doing that.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that open government becomes impossible if the Government cannot publish their alternative options for discussion without it immediately being assumed that the worst option represents the Government's intention?

Mr. Edwards: That is clear. One conclusion to which one might come when reading the Serpell report is that it is impossible to maintain a railway service in this country on any scale without a continuing subsidy. Therefore, the debate can centre rationally and sensibly on the sort of railway service that we want and the extent of the subsidy.

Mr. Alec Jones: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government had no proposals to close railway lines at


the present moment and that he regarded the Serpell report as useful. Would it not be of considerable benefit to the right hon. Gentleman, as the Minister responsible for transport in Wales, to initiate the sort of conference called for by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), so that if the right hon. Gentleman has plans for improving transport facilities in Wales he can have the benefit of the advice of all those who know far more about the matter than he is likely to know?

Mr. Edwards: It is a continuing debate. I have responsibility for some aspects of transport, but not others, and it would be sensible for a number of proposals and ideas to be clarified before we have the sort of all-embracing conference that has been suggested. I certainly do not close my mind to the idea of a conference, and I shall be maintaining the closest possible contact with all interested parties in the coming months. I met the chairman of British Rail, Sir Peter Parker, to discuss some of the issues as recently as last month.

Mr. John Morris: Will the Secretary of State at least reject the railway zero-option for Wales, which many of the Serpell proposals would mean? That would at least release some parts of Wales from the misery and fear that I have witnessed at many of the public inquiries that I have attended.

Mr. Edwards: Certainly.

Sporting Occasions (Inward Investment)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will consider using Welsh sporting occasions to encourage foreign inward investment in Wales

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: All appropriate occasions, sporting or otherwise, are used to promote the attractions of Wales as the ideal location for overseas investment.

Mr. Dalyell: Are not the Welsh not only more eloquent but more intelligent and realistic about the outside world than the southern English? Is it not a fact that, for many years, rugby teams from Argentina have come to play against Welsh teams in sporting events? Is it not also true that, in cultural matters, there have been many visitors from Welsh communities in Argentina to eisteddfods? In those circumstances, will the Secretary of State say what he has done in Cabinet to achieve a realist policy towards a Falkland Islands solution? Would it not be better for—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Fair play. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) must confine himself to foreign inward investment in Wales.

Mr. Dalyell: —by the transfer of responsibility for the Falklands from the Foreign Office and Downing street to the Welsh Office?

Mr. Edwards: I know of no proposals for inward investment from Argentina at present, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Welsh rugby side, by its defeats of Scotland and Ireland, has shown just the type of team spirit, competence and enterprise that will attract to Wales inward investment from all over the world.

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Wardell: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the rate of increase between January 1980 and January 1983 in the number of persons unemployed for more than 52 weeks in (a) Wales and (b) west Glamorgan.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Between January 1980 and October 1982 registrants unemployed for more than 52 weeks increased by 197·7 per cent. and 266·8 per cent. in Wales and west Glamorgan respectively. Between October 1982 and January 1983 unemployed claimants in the same category increased by 9 and 7·9 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Wardell: In view of those deeply disturbing figures for a group of unemployed people who do not qualify for the long-term rate of supplementary benefit. and which emphasise the chronic nature of unemployment in west Glamorgan, will the Secretary of State now take steps to designate the whole of the county as a special development area?

Mr. Edwards: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the unemployment figures, but the relative unemployment figures in west Glamorgan do not support his case. One can be glad that the initiatives that we are taking—the enterprise zone and the new urban development programme for Swansea—are already giving evidence that they will attract new job prospects to the area.

Sir Raymond Gower: As Governments of the Left and of the Right in all parts of the world are having limited success in their efforts to defeat unemployment, is there not a desperate need for much more international action to ensure a growth of trade and to avoid protectionism, which is a menace to the world?

Mr. Edwards: I certainly share my hon. Friend's view that we must resist the siren voices that call for protectionism. In my travels around the world I notice that job creation activities have been most successful in areas where the free enterprise economy is at its strongest and where controls and constraints are fewest. The area around Greater Boston is an example of the enormous job-creating potential shown by the new industries, which are just the types of industries that we are seeking to attract to Wales.

Mr. Alan Williams: On the basis of the figures that he has just given does the Secretary of State not realise that, whereas in Wales there has been a tragic trebling of the number of people who have been out of work for more than a year, in west Glamorgan there has been almost a quadrupling of that number? On the basis of these figures, how does the right hon. Gentleman justify not only withholding the special development area status for which my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) asked, but actually removing most of the assisted area status that west Glamorgan enjoyed?

Mr. Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman will know that we set out our reasons for the changes in regional policy when we last reviewed the matter. We had to take account of a wide range of factors, of which the relative position of particular areas is one. The right hon. Gentleman cannot suggest that we are not taking energetic action to improve the environment in the area. As recently as March last month I announced £2 million of urban development grant expenditure, which will transform Swansea both as an area in which to live and for tourism and industrial development.

Mr. Coleman: Are not the figures that have been given to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) yet another reminder of how the Government's policies are the cause of such grievous unemployment in south Wales?


Is it not time that the electors of south Wales were given the same opportunity to repudiate such policies as was given to the electors of New South Wales so effectively last week?

Mr. Edwards: When the opportunity to decide these matters is taken, I have no doubt that the electors will make their views plain. I will be happy to put before them the record of this Government in tackling the grievous problems that we inherited. I will remind them that every Labour Government since the war have left unemployment higher when they departed from office than it was when they came in.

Newport (Employment)

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest figure of the number of males unemployed in Newport, Gwent; and what percentage of the male working population in Newport this represents.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 10 February male unemployment in the Newport travel-to-work area totalled 10,309 or 18·2 per cent.

Mr. Hughes: Those figures are simply appalling, but, in addition, a further 350 male jobs are now to go at Alcan Rogerstone. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to impress on the management of that plant the defence implications of the proposed closure? Surely the recent Falklands experience should make us realise that more than just commercial expediency must be considered with regard to this proposal.

Mr. Edwards: While I understand that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the loss of the extrusion facilities and its effect on defence, I am informed by the company that the bulk of the extrusion facilities will be transferred to other plants, except in cases where it does not see a commercial future, and that, in any case, the main manufacturing facility which is causing concern to the hon. Gentleman will not be needed for a long time to come because the particular product is tending to be made of carbon fibre, not of aluminium.

Agriculture Industry

Mr. Geraint Howells: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the present state of the agriculture industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The recently published White Paper on agriculture shows that Welsh farmers shared in the substantial recovery in farm incomes in 1981–82 following two difficult years. This recovery is expected to continue in the current year.

Mr. Howells: I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that the deficiency payments scheme has worked well for many years for beef and lamb producers in Wales. Why will the Government not introduce a deficiency payments scheme to help pig producers in Wales, who are in dire trouble?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the problems of the pig industry have been apparent for a considerable time and have been recently discussed between the unions and the Government. I do not think that there will be widespread support for his proposal that

deficiency payments should be introduced for the pig industry. It is clear that the Government's general measures for agriculture have been extremely successful in maintaining the position of agriculture, not least in Wales.

Mr. Alec Jones: When are farmers in Wales likely to see some tangible benefits from the proposal to extend the less-favoured areas directive to that part of Wales now described as marginal land?

Mr. Edwards: I should like to be able to give the right hon. Gentleman an answer, but the Commission is now asking a great many detailed questions about our application, which is its right. We are dealing with the questions, but I cannot say how long it will take to satisfy the Commission as to the eligibility of the land in question.

Lesser Spoken Languages (European Bureau)

Mr. Hooson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether his Department has yet established liaison with the European bureau for the lesser spoken languages.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): The bureau has not yet been set up, but Welsh Office officials are in touch with the Commission's office for Wales.

Mr. Hooson: Will my hon. Friend ensure that there is a strong Welsh lead in the bureau when it is set up, to achieve practicality, not least because there is always a danger with a project of this type, which is potentially worth while, that it will become the worst sort of pointless sociological exploration?

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend may be aware that the bureau's initial budget will be £56,000. Spending on the Welsh language in Wales in the coming year will be £2·5 million, almost four times as much as during 1978–79. I understand that apart from all the Celtic lesser spoken languages in Britain, the Republic of Ireland and France, there are no fewer than 12 lesser spoken languages in Italy alone.

Mr. Abse: I appreciate that the Secretary of State must have his priorities in deciding with whom he liaises, but will the Under-Secretary of State suggest to his right hon. Friend that he begins liaising inside Wales? Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State has never—he cannot deny this—visited the National Coal Board's premises or a pit during the time that he has been Secretary of State for Wales? Does he think that this is a contribution to industrial relations within south Wales?

Mr. Roberts: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman believes that his supplementary question arises from the main question, which is about the European bureau for the lesser spoken languages.

Youth Training Scheme

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement regarding the application of the youth training scheme to Wales.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I understand that the Manpower Services Commission in Wales will be seeking to provide around 25,000 YTS places in 1983–84. It is too early to be precise about the range of places likely to be available but so far the response of employers generally has been encouraging.

Mr. Jones: Are the Government considering, as predicted in yesterday's edition of The Sunday Times, a form of military national service training for unemployed school leavers? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, overall, the Government are having desperate trouble in the civilian sector in finding sufficient training places? Is it not diabolical that having created the jobs desert for school leavers the Government must now consider having national service to give our unemployed youngsters training?

Mr. Edwards: There is no proposal for national service. The Manpower Service Commission, which is responsible for the scheme, is seeking proposals from employers with a view to making a success of it. I am told by the MSC that it hopes to be able to fill the proposed number of vacancies in this scheme for Wales. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will give Mr. David Schwarz, the chairman of the committee, and his team every support and encouragement in making a success of this most important scheme.

Mr. Wigley: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there are now about 37,000 young people in Wales under the age of 20 who are out of work? Does he accept that this is a reflection of the Government's failure to provide work, from whatever scheme, for these people?

Mr. Edwards: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the scheme in the light of the figure that I have announced. It is designed to deal with the problems of those who are out of work and to improve their training and, therefore, their likely success in fining employment in future.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend recall the efforts that I have made at all times to support him from these Benches in the great job that he has been doing as Secretary of State for Wales? Will he give me his assurance that he will not use the authority of his office to cover the carefully orchestrated manoeuvre that is designed to remove me from these Benches—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) must resume his seat. He knows very well that this question is about youth training in Wales.

Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many workers were employed in manufacturing industry in Wales in May 1979 and at the latest available date.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Quarterly estimates published in the Employment Gazetteindicate that 312,000 persons were employed in manufacturing in June 1979 and 219,000 in September 1982, the latest available estimate.

Mr. Evans: Does the Secretary of State realise that there is widespread despair in south Wales over the number of manufacturing firms that have gone out of existence in the area while the Government have been in office? It is known that Mr. Ian MacGregor presided over massive cuts in the steel industry when he was chairman of BSC. Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the rumour that Mr. MacGregor is to be transferred to the coal industry is creating a good deal of anxiety? Will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices in the Cabinet to prevent that appointment taking place?

Mr. Edwards: I do not intend to speculate on public appointments from the Dispatch Box. In view of the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the need for manufacturing employment, I am sure that he will welcome the fact that today yet another United States high technology company, Align-Rite has announced that it will be establishing itself in the new industrial part in Mid-Glamorgan and will employ about 150 persons to produce photo masks for use in the production of microelectronic systems.

Mr. Barry Jones: If the right hon. Gentleman is sincere about the evils of mass unemployment in Wales, why are the Government moving towards the closure of jobcentres in Bethesda, Dolgellau, Glyn Neath and Llandovery for the trifling saving of only £11,000? Why are the Government prepared to dispense with these excellent ways of trying to help those who are unemployed?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman should not seek to exaggerate the practical arrangements and proposals of the MSC in examining its facilities. The proposals concern part-time offices and only three employees will be affected by the proposals. This is hardly relevant to the figures that we have been discussing.

Mr. Alec Jones: The figures that the Secretary of State has announced show that the number of new jobs that he keeps talking about is but a drop in the ocean compared with the vast number of jobs that have been destroyed since the Government took office. Surely the decline in manufacturing industry in Wales shows clearly that the rate has been greater under this Government than under any Government since the war. Given this decline and the reduction in the number of apprenticeships for young people, what hope does the right hon. Gentleman see for young people in Wales in future?

Mr. Edwards: These factors indicate the dramatic nature of the change in employment that is happening worldwide and the move from manufacturing to the service sector. In high technology industry, which we are so anxious to attract to Wales, we see a good example of the positive aspects as well as the problems. Anyone who studies the issue will realise that there are more jobs to be created in the software sector than in the hardware sector of the computer industry. The recent arrival of new service sector jobs in Wales shows the opportunities that are there. We should not be aiming only for manufacturing investment of the old sort.

House Building Statistics

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many new dwellings were completed in Wales in (a) the public sector and (b) the private sector in the latest full year for which figures are available; and how this compares with the completions achieved in the best year, in each sector, respectively, since 1945.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: In 1982, 2,672 new dwellings were completed in the public sector and 4,781 in the private sector. The "best years" were 1953 in the public sector and 1973 in the private sector when 13,312 and 10,957 dwellings respectively were completed.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that the 1982 figures are disastrous? Since the war there have been seven years in which over 10,000 houses have been built in the


public sector and two years in which over 10,000 were built in the private sector. There was one year in which over 20,000 houses in total were built. How can the hon. Gentleman justify his Government's housing policy for Wales when we compare it with the successes of the past?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman must realise that there has been a general decline in house building over the past decade. The public sector has been declining since 1975 and the private sector since 1973. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not because of lack of money that houses are not being built. Local authorities were underspent to the tune of £35 million in 1981–82. The first nine months of 1982–83 show that the authorities spent only 51 per cent. of the sum that they could have spent in the year. In 1983–84 they will be given 23 per cent. more than they are likely to spend this year.

Mr. Anderson: Will the Minister compare those figures with the demand and need in Wales as measured by the figures that he gave to the conference of local government housing officials at Llandrindod Wells, which were in the range of 20,000 dwellings per annum? Does not the shortfall from such need lead only to greater homelessness and anxiety among our people in Wales?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is at least as aware as I am that the local authorities have a serious and grave responsibility in this matter. A number of Welsh local authorities have chosen not to use their capital receipts on new capital expenditure and have large amounts of money in hand. I can perhaps assist the House by giving a little news on the bright side, which is that there has been a substantial increase in housing starts over the 1981 figure in both the public and private sector, amounting to 33·7 per cent. overall, taking the public and private sector together. [Interruption.] I am surprised that Opposition Members are not glad to hear this.

Welsh Development Agency

Mr. Tom Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is now in a position to announce new policy guidelines for the Welsh Development Agency.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I met the board of the Welsh Development Agency on 1 March to discuss future policies. In the light of this the agency board will be giving further consideration at this month's meeting both to priorities in the coming year and to general strategy.

Mr. Ellis: That is a disappointing reply. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that new companies which have sought assistance from the WDA, only to be refused, have then gone to other agencies and have established businesses in other parts of the United Kingdom? Is he further aware that there is clearly a bottleneck in the processing of applications to the WDA? When will these problems be overcome?

Mr. Edwards: I have received no evidence of a logjam, but it is not surprising that different agencies might take different decisions. The applications often take a different form by the time they are submitted again. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the board is not waiting until the completion of its deliberations before introducing new measures or changing its system. When it has considered these matters fully, I intend to seek further ways of reporting its decisions to hon. Members.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Redundant Churches (Alternative Users)

Mr. Chapman: asked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing- the Church Commissioners, if the Church Commissioners are satisfied with the arrangements for finding alternative uses for churches no longer in use, with particular reference to discouraging the demolition of those of architectural interest.

The Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing the Church Commissioners (Sir William van Straubenzee): Each diocese has a committee whose difficult duty it is to make every endeavour to find suitable alternative uses for redundant churches in its area. My hon. Friend will be encouraged to note that, over a 14-year period to the end of 1982, 52 per cent. have been put to new uses, 21 per cent. have been preserved and only 27 per cent. have been demolished. The Church Commissioners believe that this is a creditable record.

Mr. Chapman: I am grateful for that information. Will my hon. Friend comment upon the fact that many churches face demolition only because they fall into a state of disrepair after having become redundant? Would it not be a good idea if the Church Commissioners were to consider setting up a special fund that might attract outside contributions and upon which each diocese could draw, if necessary, the better to preserve our attractive architectural ecclesiastical heritage?

Sir William van Straubenzee: The time involved varies enormously according to whether it is possible to find a use for the building. At one extreme, for example, for the only grade A listed building which it was contemplated would be demolished, seven years were taken to try to find an alternative use. That illustrates the enormous care taken.

Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a much more serious side to the matter? Is he aware that the House knows that recently a redundant church in the south of England was sold to members of another religion? If that practice were to continue, it would not be received with favour by the House.

Sir William van Straubenzee: It is not the only church that has been sold to members of another religion. The particular point is that this church, which is in Southampton, has been sold to a non-Christian faith for worship. The Church Commissioners gave the matter the most anxious consideration. There was universal local support for the sale to the Sikh community, but the Church Commissioners have made it clear that they will judge every case on its merits.

Church of England Schools (Improvement and Extension)

Mr. Greenway: asked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, how much the Church Commissioners had paid from their general fund to the Central Board of Finance for the improvement or extension of Church of England schools to the latest convenient date.

Sir William van Straubenzee: The commissioners were empowered in 1958 to make payments to the central


board of finance totalling not more than £1 million over 25 years for this purpose. The allocation was completed in 1978.

Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the Labour party's extreme pressure against Church schools, directly and through the Socialist Education Association, as instanced by the pressure against establishing the new Church of England Twyford high school in Ealing by the whole of the Labour party national executive and many Left-wing clerics? Is my hon. Friend aware that the year before Twyford school became a Church of England school there were 54 first choices for the 240 places, but that this year, two years after it became a Church school, in the face of strenuous opposition from the Labour party, there are 253 applications for 180 places? Is that not clear evidence of strong parental support for Church schools?

Sir William van Straubenzee: There is good evidence that in many, perhaps all, parts of the country there is strong support by parents for Church schools of all denominations. The penetrating figures given by my hon. Friend seem to justify the expenditure that I announced in my main answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Night Work

Mr. Wigley: asked the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, as representing the House of Commons Commission, how many of the staff of the House are expected to be available to work at night.

Mr. Arthur Bottomley: A total of 486 staff are required to work beyond 6 pm on at least one night a week.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Commission accept that some members of staff are expected to work inordinately long hours, sometimes running right through the night, and that they have to carry unreasonable burdens? Will the Commission consider taking up with the appropriate authorities whether, as a House, we could work more sensible hours to relieve the burden on the staff as well as on hon. Members?

Mr. Bottomley: The latter part of the question has my wholehearted support. All the time that I have been in Parliament I have been trying to achieve an arrangement whereby staff and Members work reasonable hours. I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman said about excessive hours, although I understand that the hours are shared as equally as possible and in some cases are on an alternative basis.

Trade Union Discussions

Mr. Canavan: asked the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what subjects the Commission expects to discuss at its next meeting with trades union representatives of House employees.

Mr. Arthur Bottomley: Negotiations and consultations are usually carried on between representatives of management and trade unions without the direct involvement of the Commission.

Mr. Canavan: Is the Commission aware of the widespread resentment felt by House of Commons staff

about the decision to ban them from buying certain souvenir items such as House of Commons ties, ashtrays, and beer tankards, which are now on sale in the kiosk downstairs to hon. Members only? Were the trade unions or staff consulted before such a discriminatory and petty-minded policy was implemented?

Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend will appreciate that this is a matter for the Catering Sub-Committee of the House of Commons (Services) Committee. I assure him that I take note of his question and will consider the matter.

Mr. Ray Powell: Is my right hon. Friend aware of early-day motion No. 312, which asks the Commission to look closely at medical facilities for the staff in the House? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the subject appears on one of the agendas so that it can receive serious consideration? It is urgently needed.

Mr. Bottomley: The Commission has taken action and gained some medical staff here. There was none for years. I shall submit the matter to my colleagues on the Commission to see whether it should be reconsidered.

Mr. Cormack: To return to the question asked by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a fairly unanimous feeling on the House of Commons (Services) Committee that the House of Commons portcullis insignia should not be freely and indiscriminately available to anyone other than hon. Members?

House of Commons Commission (Meetings)

Mr. Murphy: asked the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, as representing the House of Commons Commission, how often the House of Commons Commission meets; and what are the main items for discussion.

Mr. Arthur Bottomley: In the current financial year the Commission has met six times. The matters considered have derived from the Commission's responsibilities for staff and House expenditure, as set out in the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978.

Mr. Murphy: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. How can representations be accepted by the Commission from hon. Members and the staff?

Mr. Bottomley: Representations from the staff are made through the Whitley council and the trade unions. Every Member of the House can approach the Commission direct on any matter he wishes to raise with it.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Elgin Marbles

Sir David Price: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what requests he has received for the return of the Elgin marbles; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Paul Channon): The Government have received no formal request for the return of the Elgin marbles.

Sir David Price: Does my right hon. Friend agree that but for the foresight, perseverance and generosity of the seventh Earl of Elgin, who in modern terms spent more


than £1½ million, the marbles would no longer exist? Will he therefore tell the Greek Minister of Culture that, with regard to her demand for the return of the Elgin marbles, her own advice of "Never on a Sunday" applies to all other days of the week as well?

Mr. Channon: I note my hon. Friend's view. I agree with the first part of his question. On the point of principle, it must be right to have some international collections of great international significance, and the British museum is paramount among them.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is the Minister aware that the seventh Earl of Elgin was an unscrupulous vandal—

Sir David Price: Shame.

Mr. Christopher Price: —who cut sculptures off the Parthenon that were an integral part of that building? Is the Minister further aware that he was forced to discuss this serious issue at the UNESCO conference in Mexico? Will the right hon. Gentleman take the matter seriously? When he receives a formal request from the Greek Government, will he discuss it seriously instead of refusing to enter into discussions about the matter?

Mr. Channon: As the hon. Gentleman said, this matter was raised at the UNESCO meeting last year. It is an extremely serious issue. I do not wish to quibble with the hon. Gentleman about history, but some hon. Members will at least feel that had it not been for Lord Elgin there would now be no Elgin marbles. It would be a disaster for the world if collections of one culture were available only in that country. We must have some great international collections. The British museum is one. The Elgin marbles were legally obtained, and it remains the Government's view that they should remain in the British museum.

Mr. Cormack: I reinforce the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price). Will my right hon. Friend repudiate what was said by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) about Lord Elgin's actions? Is it not absolutely and incontrovertibly true that had he not brought the marbles here they would have been destroyed—probably by the Turks?

Sir David Price: Quite right.

Mr. Channon: There seems little doubt that had Lord Elgin not brought the marbles here they would not now exist. Parts of the Parthenon are in nine other museums in six countries. The British museum is not alone in this. It is in the interests of everyone, from whichever country he comes, that these great international collections should continue.

Mr. Whitehead: Is the Minister aware that there is a widespread view among Labour Members and in the country that, in spite of the exemplary care that has been taken of the Elgin marbles by the seventh Earl and the British museum, 1803 is not 1983? May not the time have come to reconstitute the Parthenon frieze on an appropriate site as near as possible to the great national monument that it once adorned?

Mr. Channon: I understand that if the Elgin marbles were to go back to Greece they would go from one museum to another. There is no question of reconstituting them on site. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) pointed out on a recent television

programme, that would be another question. It is proposed that the marbles should move from one museum to another. What would be the point of that?

Works of Art (Borrowings)

Mr. Murphy: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now establish a national scheme for the borrowing of works of art from galleries.

Mr. Channon: The national galleries already have extensive arrangements for supplying other public institutions with individual loans and exhibitions. So do many local and independent galleries, the area museum councils and the Arts Council. I am always ready to encourage suitable further developments, including the possibility of loans to a wider circle of borrowers, but I doubt whether a centrally administered national scheme is necessary for this purpose.

Mr. Murphy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that comprehensive answer. Does he agree that the example of Manchester, in loaning unhung pictures, gives a greater opportunity both of viewing those pictures and for greater finance to be gleaned?

Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said. The Manchester scheme has been imaginative and successful. I shall do what I can to encourage its propagation, and I shall discuss the matter with the Museums and Galleries Commission.

Rayner Scrutiny Team

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether the members of the Rayner scrutiny team into national arts bodies will be called upon to exercise their artistic judgment.

Mr. Channon: Questions of artistic judgment will undoubtedly arise. The team proposes to draw on the advice of people qualified to help it, as well as, of course, to discuss such questions with the companies themselves.

Mr. Price: Does the Minister agree that the precedent of asking Mr. Burrett to look at the theatre museum was not a happy one? What are Mr. Priestley's artistic qualifications? If he will not use his own artistic judgment, on whose advice will the right hon. Gentleman draw in coming to judgments involving decisions about artistic merit?

Mr. Channon: I deplore what the hon. Gentleman has said about a previous scrutiny. It is unfair personally to attack it. In this case, a team will be able to call on special assistance in financial and other areas that it judges necessary. The team has yet to appoint any advisers, but it will be able to do so and its selection will be discussed with me and the chairmen of the companies concerned. In that way, I believe that the points raised by the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend recall that Lord Shinwell, as Minister of Defence, threatened to make military judgments when Field Marshal Montgomery was Chief of Defence Staff and made political judgments? May not national arts bodies make dangerous economic judgments if Rayner forces upon them unacceptable artistic judgments?

Mr. Channon: There is no question of unacceptable artistic judgments being forced on anyone. In areas where


large sums of public money are spent on the arts I should have thought that the House would be anxious to ensure that value for money was obtained. It is only right that there should be a Rayner scrutiny into these two areas so that we can establish the proof.

Mr. Whitehead: Will the study group be empowered to hear evidence from the regions as well as from London so that it can look in depth at the imbalance between the funding of opera in London and opera elsewhere in the country? That matter has just been brought to the attention of the House and the country by Dr. Hoggart's study for the Arts Council.

Mr. Channon: It will be able to take evidence from anywhere it thinks fit. Indeed, it has specifically written to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West, (Mr. Price), asking for his views as Chairman of the Select Committee. It is looking forward to receiving them. Of course the group will take evidence. The Hoggart report is, of course, a discussion document at this stage and no decisions have been taken upon it.

Mr. Cormack: Without discussing the merits of individuals, does my right hon. Friend accept that the last scrutiny left much to be desired? That was the view of the Select Committee and almost everyone who knew anything about the subject and read the report. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that those lessons have been taken on board?

Mr. Channon: I can assure my hon. Friend that an immense amount of trouble has been taken over this scrutiny. The people involved will do it extremely well. They have great financial experience and will have the opportunity of calling on expert advice in other areas. I hope and believe that both my hon. Friend and the House will think the report worth while.

Theatre Museum

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made towards establishing the theatre museum.

Mr. Channon: Subject to the satisfactory completion of lease negotiations, about which I foresee no problems, between the Greater London council and the Property Services Agency, building work on the theatre museum project in Covent Garden is planned to start in May.

Mr. Jessel: When is the theatre museum likely to be opened?

Mr. Channon: The building work is likely to take about two years. That will be followed by the fitting-out of the museum and I cannot, at this stage, say how long that will take. It will be for the new trustees of the V and A to decide when the theatre museum will be opened, but the main building work will take approximately two years.

Sir David Price: Will my right hon. friend ensure that when this great moment comes there will be adequate access for the disabled, which, as he knows, does not happen in certain other great national galleries?

Mr. Channon: I have particularly taken note of my hon. Friend's views about that matter and I shall take the opportunity of drawing the point to the attention to the new trustees of the V and A.

Victoria and Albert Museum (Grant)

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the increase in the total grant allocation to the Victoria and Albert museum in 1983–84 over 1982–83.

Mr. Channon: The estimates submitted to Parliament provide for a total allocation to the Victoria and Albert museum in 1983–84 of £10,456,000, an increase of 12·5 per cent. over the corresponding figure for 1982–83.

Mr. Neubert: I welcome that substantial increase in support for the V and A. What new developments can we expect at the V and A this coming year?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend will be aware that next week will see the opening of the Henry Cole building, which will be the greatest extension of the V and A in 70 years and a major step in the history of the museum. I assure my hon. Friend that the taxpayer is getting good value for money.

Mr. Whitehead: While I welcome the admirable development of the Henry Cole building, may I ask the Minister to encourage the V and A to take up once again the touring role, which it used to follow rather more extensively than it does now?

Mr. Channon: Again, that will be a matter for the trustees of the museum once they come into being. We shall have an opportunity to discuss that elsewhere.

Sir Anthony Fell: Would it be possible for my right hon. Friend to see that the management runs the Victoria and Albert museum, instead of the staff?

Mr. Channon: Again, that is an issue that is not irrelevant to the discussions in Committee on the National Heritage [Lords] Bill. The Government's intention is that the trustees should be responsible for the museum. Although they will delegate some things to the staff, it is the trustees who will carry responsibility for the policy of the new museum.

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Recently it was suggested that Welsh Question Time be curtailed. However, on the Order Paper today there are six questions from Welsh Members not yet called, and the time for questions has elapsed. In addition, one of the principal questions deals with the miners' strike in Wales, which has not been mentioned during Welsh questions. This time should have been afforded. I hope that the hon. Member who suggested that Welsh Question Time should be reduced will bear in mind that there are Welsh Members still waiting to be called today.

Mr. Speaker: I allowed the hon. Gentleman to get that off his chest.

DENTISTS BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That the Dentists Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Cope.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That if the British Fishing Boats Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed and that as soon as the proceedings on any Resolution come to by the House on British Fishing Boats [Money] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. Cope.]

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Review of the Operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 by The Right Honourable Earl Jellicoe, DSO, MC (Cmnd. 8803).
I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House for the debate also to cover the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order 1983.

Mr. Speaker: If that is the wish of the House, so be it.

Mr. Whitelaw: At the renewal debate last year I undertook that there would be a review of the 1976 Act and I announced the intention to appoint Lord Jellicoe to undertake it. At that time the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) welcomed the decision. I believe that he looked to Lord Jellicoe to consider whether the Act achieved the right balance between the safety of the public and the rights of the individual. The right hon. Gentleman and the majority of the members of his party then abstained from voting on the issue of the renewal of the 1976 Act.
I say at once that in my view the report demonstrates exactly that balance. It does indeed recommend important safeguards. It levels clear criticism but never without proposing constructive solutions. I am glad to take this opportunity of expressing my own gratitude and, I believe, the gratitude of the House to Lord Jellicoe for taking on this task and for completing it with such distinction.
I believe that it will be helpful to the House if I were to summarise the main recommendations in the report, including the important new safeguards that it proposes.
The report recommends that legislation of this nature should require periodic full re-enactment by Parliament in addition to annual renewal and says that it should have a maximum life-span of five years without the possibility of further extension, so that any further legislation to prevent terrorism would require a new Bill. The prime purpose of this is to ensure that parliamentary scrutiny of the legislation can provide the ultimate safeguard as to the use of the powers. It will also mean that amendments of detail can be made regularly to meet changing circumstances.
The report recommends that the powers of arrest, both generally and at the ports, should apply to suspected international terrorists of any group, cause or nationality as well as to suspected terrorists connected with Northern Ireland. In paragraph 76 of his report Lord Jellicoe accepts the force of the argument that the Irish community may view the present legislation as anti-Irish rather than antiterrorist and he recognises the presentational advantage of the change that he proposes in that it would help to remove the claim that these powers are aimed against Irish people. However, he emphasises that practical considerations have caused him to make the recommendations. He says:
I am satisfied … that the arrest powers in this Act have been of considerable benefit in dealing with Northern Irish terrorism. This being so, I believe that they should be available for use in dealing with international terrorism.
The report draws attention to the major trend of an increasing threat from international terrorism within the


United Kingdom. It points to the forging of international links by Northern Ireland terrorist groups and to incidents on the mainland unconnected with Northern Irish affairs. The recent conclusion of the trial of those responsible for the cold-blooded shooting of the Israeli ambassador in June last year reminds us all of the gravity of international terrorist activity.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: The House is as concerned as the right hon. Gentleman about the tragic happenings concerning the Israeli ambassador. However, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this legislation, even if improved as suggested by Lord Jellicoe, would have prevented that happening, as it appears to have been planned outside the United Kingdom?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman must know when he asks that question that no one can prove that any particular piece of legislation can prevent any such happenings. One can only say that one believes that the value of a measure such as this would render it unlikely. One cannot go further than that. No one can prove, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, that something would, or would not, happen. However, one can show that it is more unlikely to happen, and that, in the circumstances, is very important.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: There is a suspicion that the weapons and the ammunition used in the shooting of the Israeli ambassador were not brought into the country by any means that would, in any normal circumstances, be detected. It rather looks as though that ammunition may have been brought into the country in diplomatic bags. If that is so, it merely reawakens the concern that this House has expressed on other occasions. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would be good enough to say whether he thinks that the methods of preventing that sort of thing from happening are adequate? Is he looking into methods of dealing with weapons brought into the country in diplomatic bags?

Mr. Whitelaw: It would be unwise of me, in the context of this Act, to respond to suspicions of that sort, which I could neither confirm nor deny.
The report makes a series of recommendations which would be effective safeguards against unnecessarily long extensions of detention under the Act. If this approach becomes law it will be possible for the Secretary of State to grant an extension for less than the full five days knowing that if a case is made out he may grant a further extension provided that the total period in detention does not exceed seven days. This should encourage the police to apply for an extension for the time that they think they will need on the available information. They need not fear that, if information comes to light as a result of their investigations to justify further questioning, it will be too late to seek an extension. In the present state of the law, the police are taking a risk if they apply for anything less than five days.
The report contains a number of important recommendations about the treatment of persons detained under the Act to ensure that they have fully adequate access to a solicitor and that their rights as to the notification of a friend or relative are made explicit. Subject to the views of the House, I intend to give effect to those recommendations, in respect of England and Wales, in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill and in the related codes.
Where a person is examined at a port for longer than one hour, Lord Jellicoe recommends that he be given a notice of his rights. He also recommends that examining officers should lose the right to examine a passenger 12 hours after the start of the examination unless they have formed a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is guilty of an offence under the Act, is concerned in terrorism, or is subject to an exclusion order. While making constructive proposals to safeguard the travelling public, Lord Jellicoe concludes that
while there remains a significant threat from terrorism related to Northern Ireland it will be necessary to retain port controls in something like their present form.
Under the present Act, an exclusion order may not be made prohibiting a British citizen from entering a part of the United Kingdom if he has been ordinarily resident there for 20 years. The report recommends a major change in that provision to the effect that a British citizen should not be liable to exclusion from that part of the United Kingdom in which he is settled. It suggests that "settled" should be defined as ordinarily resident in a part of the United Kingdom for a continuous period of three years. This proposal is designed, amongst other things, to prevent the use of exclusion powers causing significant hardship, either financial or emotional, to the family of the excluded person.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he accepts that proposal?

Mr. Whitelaw: In basic terms, yes, certainly.
The report contains detailed suggestions for making the system of review by an adviser more effective. In paragraph 193 Lord Jellicoe points out that one third of the orders that have been reviewed by an adviser have then been revoked. This leads him to the conclusion that the system of review is a real safeguard. But he recognises that representations, including an interview with the adviser, now require the subject to remain for a further period in custody in order to take advantage of the arrangements. This deterrent effect is to he eliminated by providing for a personal interview with the adviser after a subject has been removed provided he has been removed within the United Kingdom or to the Republic of Ireland.
The final recommendation to which I think it right to draw attention at the beginning of this debate is that exclusion orders should have a fixed term of three years. The report recommends that after that length of time, if exclusion is still thought necessary, the whole process should be followed again from the beginning, to ensure that the strength of the case for exclusion is scrutinised anew. Lord Jellicoe found the consideration of the system of exclusion the most difficult part of his task. He recommended the additional safeguards I have mentioned. But he concluded that
the exclusion of some people under these powers has materially contributed to public safety in the United Kingdom and that this could not have been achieved through the normal criminal process".
I can say—this answers the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson)—that the Government accept many of Lord Jellicoe's recommendations for immediate implementation. I have already given effect to the recommendation that I, rather than the responsible junior Minister, should consider applications from the police for an extension of detention under the Act. Several of the recommendations can be implemented administratively either by circular or by informal arrangements. Subject to


the views of the House in this debate and the views in another place—and I thought it right to wait for these debates—I am ready to give effect to these recommendations without delay.
But the most significant recommendations require new legislation and I intend to introduce a Bill which, as Lord Jellicoe suggests, will be subject to annual renewal and have a limited span of five years. I hope, therefore, that this will be the last time that a Home Secretary will be asking the House to renew the 1976 Act for a full year.
As to the detailed content of the Bill—on the scope of the arrest powers and on the power to make exclusion orders—I believe that it is right to remain uncommitted for some weeks yet. We have asked chief officers of police for their comments and we will want to give full weight also to the views which are expressed in the House and elsewhere before deciding on the contents of the Bill in detail.
Lord Jellicoe concluded that special legislation should be continued as long as a substantial terrorist threat remained. This is a view that has been shared by this House since the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), then Home Secretary, introduced the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 in the wake of the Birmingham bombs with their tragic toll of 21 dead. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman said:
In bringing forward these proposals I have tried to steer between two dangers, both of them real. The first is that we fail to take effective and practical steps which are available to us to deal as effectively as we can with terrorism. The second is that if we over-react we risk doing serious damage to our respect for human freedom and dignity. I believe that the course that I am proposing in very difficult circumstances steers us as safely as it reasonably can through these twin dangers".—[Official Report, 28 November 1974; Vol. 882, c. 643.]
There was no doubt at this time last year that the deaths in the Chelsea barracks and Oxford street outrages, the explosion which injured Sir Steuart Pringle and the explosion outside the home of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, demonstrated a continuing threat. Against that background, the House decided to renew the Act.
I now come before the House to seek the renewal of this Act after a year that has seen further outrages which remain indelibly etched on our memories. The House does not need to be reminded of the horror and destruction which blew apart a summer's day in two London parks last July. In the wake of the suffering and the sorrow of so many, it is my firm belief that we must continue to use every practical and useful tool in our hand to frustrate terror. This Act is a vital instrument to this end, and I recommend that we should keep its powers for another year. The purpose of the order, which was laid before the House on 9 February, is to continue in operation for a further year the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976. The Act is due to lapse, unless renewed, on 24 March.
The means of the terrorists are abhorrent. To the degree that they become more savage, cruel and pitiless, so must we become more determined and steadfast in frustrating them. We must surely all of us resolve to beat the bombers. The clearest proof of their failure to terrorise, and of our own resolution, is demonstrated by a measured, sensible and constructive response to the threat. I believe

that the current prevention of terrorism legislation reflected this approach in 1974 and 1976, and that it would be unwise to jettison it now. But I also believe, and have said so many times in the past, that its powers are unwelcome and make sad inroads into our cherished traditions of civil liberties. It was for those very reasons that, in agreement with hon. Members in all parts of the House, I appointed Lord Jellicoe to scrutinise the operation of the Act, and hon. Members will know from what I have said that it is against the background of his findings that I seek renewal of the present legislation today.
The police have confirmed to me the view which they gave to Lord Jellicoe: that the Act is as important to them as it has ever been. It is as well to remind ourselves that, except for part I on proscription, the Act applies throughout the United Kingdom. The powers of arrest in section 12 are vital to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The magnitude of its task and the importance of doing nothing to weaken its effectiveness were brought home by the grief and horror of the Ballykelly bombing last December.
In this debate last year, when I announced the decision to appoint Lord Jellicoe, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that he looked forward with anxiety as well as eagerness to the conclusions of the report and to examining them with the greatest but the most sceptical care. Within a matter of hours of the publication of the report the right hon. Gentleman was broadcasting his view that the shadow Cabinet should decide to vote against the renewal of the 1976 Act. It appears that his scepticism was so deep that it overbore his intention to examine the report with great care.
There are several attitudes to this renewal, other than simple support, which I could understand and with which I could sympathise. If the right hon. Gentleman were to say that he finds this issue difficult, that he feels the continuance of these powers to be repugnant but on balance believes that it is right, I would be bound to understand, because it summarises my own position. If he expressed his unhappiness at this procedure, which requires the House to take the Act or leave it in its present form, I should understand that. If he argued that in several particulars Lord Jellicoe had not gone far enough, that also I could understand. However, we are to have a Bill that will provide ample opportunity for a line-by-line analysis of the Government's proposals, and the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will be able to press specific criticism of the 1976 Act or of Lord Jellicoe's analysis. It is with the right hon. Gentleman's present position that I cannot sympathise. I have said that the threat is tragically no less that it was in 1974 and 1976 when his party sponsored this legislation.
The police, whom we ask to protect us from terrorist outrages, strongly favour renewal of the Act. Nothing has changed to make these provisions any less vital. The only possible conclusion is that the Labour party has changed. I regret that attitude, because I have long been convinced that it is best for the protection of our people that exceptional measures of this kind should have the all-party support in this House which they have had since the Labour party itself introduced them. The Government of the day cannot be deflected from their clear responsibility. We have not flinched from that commitment, and for that reason we seek the renewal of the Act.
I ask the House for its strong support for this renewal as a clear demonstration of our continued will to do all within our power to protect the lives of the people whom we represent.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I begin by adding my thanks and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends to those already offered by the Home Secretary to Lord Jellicoe for the work that he has done in preparing this report.
Lord Jellicoe has produced a report of admirable clarity which, in my view, bravely faces the dilemma of a society which, on the one hand, has to deal with the threat of terrorism, but, on the other, is determined to maintain its civil rights. I say that Lord Jellicoe bravely faced that dilemma, although I must tell the House, as I propose to do during the minutes at my disposal, that I believe that on the most critical question of balance between protection and liberty he comes down on the wrong side of the argument. However, I am sure that we all accept his twin aims of safeguarding our citizens and preserving their constitutional freedom.
I hope that our debate today will be conducted on the understanding that, whatever our disagreements, we all occupy that common ground. Certainly I do not propose, despite his last paragraph, to accuse the Home Secretary of being negligent in the cause of civil liberties, and I suspect that neither he nor his Minister will want to accuse us of being irresponsible in the face of terrorism.
Every debate in the House on this subject begins with declarations from the Government of the day about the unacceptability of the measure that they are about to ask the House to renew. Certainly that was the view of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), when he originally introduced the proposal. It was a view that carried much credibility at the time, because of the right hon. Gentleman's obviously sincere determination that the Act should be temporary. It also carried much credibility because of the frank way in which he was prepared to describe the desperate circumstances of that moment and the public reaction to them, both the circumstances and the public reaction making, in his view and mine, the Act then temporarily necessary.
I propose to deal with the shifting ground on which the justification for the measure is built, but before I do so I want to remind the House of more recent judgments about the innate unacceptability of the Act. In 1981 the Home Secretary, agreed that the powers that we debate today
infringe our shared concept of civil liberties".—[Official Report, 18 March 1982; Vol. 1, c. 341.]
Last year the Home Secretary was equally precise. He said:
The Prevention of Terrorism Act makes a considerable inroad into the civil liberties of which we are justly proud".—[Official Report, 15 March 1982; Vol. 20, c. 151.]
If those judgments, made last year and the year before by the Home Secretary are correct—and I have no doubt that they are—the continuation of such powers must be contingent on the absolute truth that they are essential to the peace and safety of the nation. I do not believe that, either in the right hon. Gentleman's speech today, or in Lord Jellicoe's report, that case has been made out. Indeed, I quote Lord Jellicoe as my authority for the assertion that the case has not been made out that the powers are necessary and effective and need to be operated in the terms that the Home Secretary described.
In paragraph 55 of the report Lord Jellicoe is admirably honest and clear when he says:
There can be no clear proof that the arrest powers in the Prevention of Terrorism Act are, or are not, an essential weapon in the fight against terrorism.
On this point and on this subject the report can be described only as agnostic, and on that agnosticism we are now proposing to arrest men without charge, to detain them without an appearance in court, and to exile them from parts of Britain. We are proposing to do all those things for an objective that Lord Jellicoe says we cannot be certain will be achieved. Indeed, the continuation of the powers is in many ways in conflict with Lord Jellicoe's criteria.
In paragraph 1 Lord Jellicoe uses the words
if special legislation effectively reduces terrorism
and in paragraph 9 he says
while it continues to be effective".
He goes on to say that those two hypotheses would have to apply for the Act to be reasonable. In a very real sense he is comparing the powers to the just war, which can only be justified only if it is both necessary and successful. Lord Jellicoe tells us that we cannot be certain of the success of the powers, nor do I believe that we can be certain of their alleged necessity.
The reasons which are advanced to justify those infringements of our civil liberties constantly change. In 1975 we were told that, without tangible evidence of our unremitting pursuit of terrorism, the whole community of law-abiding Irish citizens might be at risk. The then Home Secretary promised to direct our activities against terrorism so as to lessen the reaction against the general body of Irish people here—an argument which at the time I regarded as having enormous strength, and which encouraged me to vote for the measure. I do not believe that anyone advances that argument today, although it was crucial in many people's minds in supporting the instrument on the first occasion.
Since then we have been told from time to time of more direct and more desperate necessities—the need to apprehend and deter terrorists and the need to detain people so that information may be gathered from them. Then, after nine years of the operation of the Act, when there has been a growing revulsion against detention without charge, and particularly against holding a man, not in order that he should be prosecuted but so that he should supply information, Lord Jellicoe now discovers a brand new reason, of which no one has spoken before—the incidence of international terrorism. Paragraph 23 draws attention to that phenomenon, but I do not believe —

Mr. John Stokes: Bearing in mind the awfulness of the Birmingham bombings, which we know about from our local experience, does the right hon. Gentleman think that he is wise to recommend any steps whatever that would lessen the right of the security authorities to control terrorism in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Hattersley: My entire speech is devoted to the principle that the answer to that question is yes. I believe that the answer is yes for reasons of principle concerning civil liberties, and of practice concerning those elements whom I deplore no less that the hon. Gentleman. I believe that such elements profit out of such legislation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, as I am trying to advance my case in a rather more acceptable way to him


and the House than by simply answering yes to his question. If the hon. Gentleman asks me whether I believe that the time has come to make adjustments, my answer is a clear affirmative, and I shall try to justify it as best I can.
Paragraph 23 of the Jellicoe report draws attention to the increasing threat of international terrorism, but nothing in the report makes anything like a convincing case that the Act is necessary to combat that hideous disease or that we would have been better equipped to combat it over the past nine years if the Act could have been applied to it. Yet on such unsubstantiated assertions we are asked to support powers which are by any standards draconian. By supporting them year after year we are being asked, in effect, to make them permanent.
It is not insignificant that Lord Jellicoe's intellectual honesty leads him to the recommendation that the word "Temporary" should be removed from the title of the order. I remind the House of the powers which now hover between temporary and permanent. Part II of the Act, if it is renewed today, will allow the Secretary of State ultimately, on his authority alone, to exclude a citizen of the United Kingdom from part of the United Kingdom. That is a power which, when it was introduced, was resisted by the Attorney-General of the day on the ground that it amounted to internal banishment—a practice which had not been allowed in England since Tudor times.
Section 3—described rather quaintly by Lord Jellicoe as containing general and miscellaneous provisions—contains schedule 12, which gives the power to arrest without warrent, to detain suspected terrorists for up to 48 hours and to extend their detention on the Home Secretary's warrant for up to seven days, and all those things can be done to free men and free women in a free society without recourse to the courts. When I made that point a year ago, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) argued against my fears.
I read the hon. Gentleman's argument again with great care this morning, and it has done more than anything to confirm my view that we ought to vote tonight against renewal of the order. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Birmingham pub bombings, which he knew had resulted in the death of six of my constituents. He said that he believed that I understood more than most people the feelings engendered by that incident. He then asked me:
Is he asking the House to accept that the police and security services should never act pre-emptively … even though the matter is not justiciable?"—[Official Report, 15 March 1982; Vol. 20, c. 156.]
Translated into everyday language, the rhetorical questions inherent in the hon. Gentleman's intervention lie at the heart of today's debate. Should the police, acting on no authority but their own, be given the power to arrest and detain? Should the Home Secretary, acting on no authority but his own, be allowed to extend the detention? Should a democratic Parliament accept that there are times when courts cannot convict but when the security services should treat men and women as if they had been convicted?
What has been the result of putting such principles into operation? According to Lord Jellicoe's report, last year only 15 out of every 100 suspected inland detainees were charged. Only five out of every 100 suspects detained at the ports were charged. The rest were, by our ancient

standards, wholly innocent. To say, as some hon. Members say, or at least think, "Ah, but despite our inability to convict them we privately know they are guilty," is to sustain a sentiment which is essentially against the democratic procedures of this House and is essentially against the rule of law.
To say that we know people are guilty but that unfortunately we cannot demonstrate their guilt in court is not the beginning of a reason why, in a free society, people should be detained and imprisoned. That seems to me to be both wrong in principle and damaging in practice to the anti-terrorist cause, because it leads to a danger which Lord Jellicoe describes with a clarity that borders on brilliance.
Two passages from Lord Jellicoe's report seem to me to be at the hub of our debate. In paragraph 10 he says:
The most important assistance which the police can have in the fight against terrorism is not special powers but the support of the public. It is vital that such powers do not unnecessarily alienate—either in their essence or in their application—any section of the law-abiding population".
There is much evidence to suggest that the alienation has already happened. Law-abiding Irish visitors feel threatened and harassed at the ports, and the Irish community in Britain feels that it is under constant suspicion. Propaganda victories are handed to the most disreputable elements in Irish politics. We can beat the gunman and the bomber only by scrupulous and clearly visible support for the rule of law which the terrorist defies and despises. We cannot beat them by sometimes descending to their own contempt for our normal judicial procedures.
The alienation described by Lord Jellicoe will increase if we renew the powers, and do so in the knowledge that they are gradually becoming more and more permanent. Last year we extended these draconian powers after a late night debate lasting for 90 minutes. The Home Secretary spoke for 16 minutes, justifying his case for extending the powers in a free society for a further year. Today the right hon. Gentleman takes the opposite view. He asks us to extend the powers on the basis of a report that recommends complete renewal after five years.
In my view, that provision will not make the powers any more temporary than they are now. In effect, it will make them much more permanent. First, it will diminish the importance of the annual debate. Every year we will be told that the debate and the scrutiny are less important than they had been because in four, three or two years, or in one year, there will be the opportunity for complete renewal or rejection. The annual renewal will become a meaningless form.
Much as I should like to be wrong, I cannot believe that after five years the Government might say that the time for the measures had passed. This Government would say either that continuing terrorism showed the need for the Act, or that the disappearance of terrorism showed the success of the Act and so it must be renewed.
The terrifying argument about the Act, which I am sure will influence some right hon. and hon. Members, although I find it wholly unpersuasive, is that, whatever the pattern of terrorism in the immediate past, it can be used as evidence to support the retention of the Act. If the Act has failed, it will be all the more necessary. If the Act has succeeded, it would be absurd to get rid of it. I fear


that the Act and the unacceptable powers that it contains are more and more characteristic of the Government's attitude to law and crime prevention in general.
Those attitudes are reflected in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill now in Committee, with its powers to detain without charge, to take fingerprints and to stop and search, all of which are part of a movement towards a more authoritarian society. I believe that that move is wrong in principle and, in terms of combating terrorism, wrong in practice.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that the balance between police powers and the liberty of the subject is one that Parliament considers very carefully before legislating. There is legislation governing police powers in normal circumstances, but for terrorism Parliament has decided that the balance should be changed somewhat and that police powers should be increased. What great principle is involved in that change? So far the right hon. Gentleman has said nothing that could possibly justify his opposition to it.

Mr. Hattersley: First, the hon. Gentleman asks me to agree that Parliament is anxious to preserve the right balance between the powers of the police and the liberty of the subject. I only wish that that had been my own recent experience. The Royal Commission on criminal procedure itself struck such a balance, but the Government changed that balance and the House of Commons slavishly endorsed the change. We should therefore not pretend that the House is always anxious to come down on the side of liberty rather than authority.
Secondly, if I failed to put my point across to the hon. Gentleman I can only regret my inadequacy. It is that in applying such powers we are in error in two specific but related ways. The detention of so many free citizens when no charge is to be made, or can be made, against them seems to be in conflict with our traditional standards and values. Moreover, it seems not to assist the campaign against terrorism but to give terrorists the propaganda that they need to recruit basically decent people to their cause by saying that in Britain the Irish are treated in an unacceptable way.

Mr. Neville Sandelson: Will the right hon. Gentleman be a little more straightforward and explicit? He talks about propaganda of that kind being used to enlist people who may join in terrorist activity. Does he really believe in the strength of that argument? Will he inform the House more explicitly and sincerely of his real views in this matter?

Mr. Hattersley: It never struck me for a moment that this cause was fashionable enough or reactionary enough to attract the support of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson). Perhaps he will consider the situation in Ireland more closely. If he will remain to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), whose record against terrorism is to be applauded by every section of the House, he will realise that, like me, the hon. Member for Belfast, West can give examples to show how Irish people who think of themselves as committed to the Republican cause are alienated from the Government in Westminster by the treatment of other Irish people at the ports and their detention in this country.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington may not wish to believe that, but the evidence is all around. Indeed,

the evidence is in the Jellicoe report. If he will do the House the courtesy—I do not ask it for myself—of reading that report, he will realise that Lord Jellicoe is worried that this measure will come to be regarded as
anti-Irish rather than anti-terrorist.
Those are Lord Jellicoe's words, not mine. I share that view and the hon. Gentleman would do well to understand and respect it.
Finally, paragraph 9 of the Jellicoe report is absolutely explicit. It says that the Act
should remain in force only while it continues to remain effective, only if its aims cannot be achieved by use of the general law, if it does not make unacceptable inroads on civil liberties
and if it is hedged about with "effective safeguards" to our freedoms. I believe that the measure that we are asked to renew fails all four of Lord Jellicoe's tests. For that reason, I shall vote against renewal and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to do the same.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: It is now eight and a quarter years since I introduced the Second Reading of the Bill on which the first Act was based and seven years since the 1976 Act was enacted. Although I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Spark brook (Mr. Hattersley) on many things, I agree that what was regarded as temporary has become fairly long lasting. Hon. Members on both sides of the House regret that. At the beginning, I hoped that that would not be so. However, looking back at the early debates, I find that I did not rule out the possibility of our being in for a long campaign. Even under the special circumstances of the Second Reading of the first Bill, I said that we would have to
persevere in what may not be a short struggle to eradicate terrorism from this country."—[Official Report, 28 November 1974; Vol. 882, c. 634.]
On Second Reading of the second Bill I said:
This is a temporary provisions Bill, but, especially in the light of recent events, it would be rash of me to forecast when we might be able to let it lapse."—[Official Report, 26 November 1975; Vol. 901, c. 890.]
There were hopes but certainly not false promises at the time.

Mr. Freeson: That was not the mood. I was a junior member of the same Government and that was not the mood in which the measure was presented to the Government, the House or the Committee.

Mr. Jenkins: Words are a rather more accurate record than mood. I remember the words that I used—I have just quoted them. The Bill was presented not to junior members of the Government but to the Cabinet and the House. I regret that we must still have it. It is reasonable to recall what was said at the time and that is what have done.
The special circumstances in which the first Bill was introduced were the aftermath of the Birmingham pub bombings. I understand that that is still the worst incident that we have suffered on the mainland. The bombings occurred on the Thursday evening, the Bill was announced on the Monday afternoon, the Second Reading was on Tuesday afternoon and we enacted it, through a long sitting, so that it completed all its stages by Wednesday morning. It was, therefore, a rushed job. In the circumstances, we were lucky that it was not a botched job. It was lucky because of sensible contingency planning that had been carried out by Home Office officials.


[Interruption.] I do not know why the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) should think that there is virtue in a great Department of State being caught completely unprepared for a national emergency. There had not been long-standing pressure for it and there had not been police pressure. The right hon. Gentleman should deal with facts, not figments of his imagination. Rather to people's surprise, the police were against proscription. Everything that I am saying is firm fact.
When we were pushing the Bill through, which I am sure it was right to do in the circumstances, I bore in mind the danger that, in such circumstances, one could be more concerned to give the appearance of action than to deal with the reality of effective action and policy. That has not proved to be so. When, a year later, we re-enacted the Bill, few changes were made. There was a full Committee stage. The changes were principally concerned to bring the Bill more tidily into line with Northern Ireland legislation, to include section 11 on the insistent initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and to deal with the new renewal procedure.
The Jellicoe report, to which I shall return shortly, makes it quite clear that almost every provision in that Act has had practical use. Lord Jellicoe has come to that conclusion having gone into the subject in the utmost detail and consulted those concerned. The only issue about which he expresses some doubt is part I, which deals with proscription. I agree with him. At the time, I never claimed that it would of itself reduce terrorist outrages. It was intended merely to avoid provocation to the public of demonstrations in support of terrorist outrages that were murdering many people.
Paradoxically, part I is that which, according to the speech of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook last year, enjoyed more of his support than any other. He said that he had no objection to that part of the Act. Reading between the lines, it is the only one about which Lord Jellicoe expressed some scepticism, although he decided that, on balance, it would not be right to change it.
Last year, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook did not lead his party into the Lobby against renewal. This is a most extraordinary year in which to change course—there has been a clear change of course. One should leave aside what I did in 1974–76 because of political events that have occurred since, but in 1977, 1978 and 1979, the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) re-enacted the provisions each year, as did the Home Secretary in 1980, 1981 and 1982. But this year the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is pursuing a new course. Is this a sensible year in which suddenly to make such a change of course? It is almost the opposite. I think that I am right to say that 1982 was the worst year for terrorist outrage both on the mainland, with the two incidents in London parks, and in Northern Ireland, with the dreadful Ballykelly incident. It was the worst year since 1975.
It is not sensible to say that because an Act does not work completely one should abolish it. No one ever claimed that the Act would give absolute protection. That would be about as sensible as if, after a bad air raid during the second world war, the Government had announced that they intended to disband the anti-aircraft artillery because it had failed to do its job completely.

Mr. McNamara: We have statistics that give the number of enemy aircraft that were shot down. What we do not have is the number either of offences or even of perpetrators of terrorism who have been brought to justice by the present legislation.

Mr. Jenkins: All the figures that can be provided are available in statistical form. However, there are matters with which one is dealing here which, inevitably, cannot be subject to absolute statistical proof.

Mr. McNamara: Only for the good and the wise.

Mr. Jenkins: It is a case not of the good or the wise but of trying to form a judgment about what best strikes the balance between human freedom and proper protection. It is right to do that and that is what the Home Secretary is trying to do.
In the past year, we have received the Jellicoe report. Last year, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook insistently asked for such a report. The report is wider-ranging and goes more deeply into the matter than was expected when the inquiry was set up. It is a remarkably good report. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook paid many tributes to its style, argument and lucidity—to everything except it conclusions. That is a well-known way of damning by faint praise. No one could read the report without realising that Lord Jellicoe went deeply into the matter, was concerned with human liberty, and was activated by a sense of independent fairness. Again and again he says that improvements can be made, and he does not hesitate to criticise some provisions, and to suggest some extremely practicable means of improvement.
It is extraordinary that, between last year, when the Labour party did not vote, and this year, when it will vote against re-enactment, when we have had the worst year of terrorism since 1975, a report suggesting considerable improvements, and the Home Secretary making it clear this afternoon that new legislation will be produced so that the whole matter can be re-examined, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook should lead his party for the first time in a completely different way. That says more about the state of the Labour party than about its attitude to terrorism. From my knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman, it is difficult to believe that, were he Home Secretary now, he would sweep away the Act and leave the country without its protection. He is lucky that it becomes increasingly unlikely that he will ever become Home Secretary. If he did, he would be racked by a conflict between his genuine concern for public safety and the foolish commitments that are part of the party games into which he has entered in opposition.
As I understood it, the Home Secretary was near to accepting Lord Jellicoe's recommendations en bloc, subject to some future consultations. I, too, believe that that is the right way to proceed. Of the many recommendations, I single out the more interesting and important. The first is the extension to international terrorism. I have no firm position on the matter, but that part of the report is the least clearly and convincingly argued. I am not sure that it is wrong to extend the Act to international terrorism, but it would have connotations for the long term. One could envisage a period in which Irish terrorism subsided or perhaps disappeared for good, but, alas, it is difficult to envisage a time when international terrorism will disappear.
Secondly, I do not completely follow Lord Jellicoe's argument that the Act should be extended to international terrorism, but not to non-Irish terrorism and non-international terrorism within Britain. However, if the Act is extended it may help to eliminate a sense of discrimination against the Irish community. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook grossly exaggerated that factor, but that is not the feeling of the great bulk of the Irish community.
I was worried, as the right hon. Gentleman knows because he was with me at the time, that in the aftermath of the Birmingham bombs there was grave danger of a backlash against the Irish community in Birmingham and elsewhere. One of my primary objectives was to prevent that. The best way to prevent that danger is to give the best protection possible against incidents involving the slaughter of innocent people. That is the greatest danger to community relations.
Lord Jellicoe recommends two three-year provisions. A three-year residence should not give someone the right of settlement—that is not an appropriate term—but should protect him from being asked to leave the part of the United Kingdom in which he is settled. He also recommends that an exclusion order should lapse and have to be renewed from the beginning after three years. It would be sensible to accept both recommendations.
Re-enactment is the right way to proceed so that one can consider all the provisions. I am not sure, from what the Home Secretary said, how one would proceed on the possibility envisaged by Lord Jellicoe that one might have to extend parts of the Act for further periods year by year, but could get rid of other parts. If that were possible, it would be desirable. If the Home Secretary believes that it would be possible, I take it that the Act would be couched in such terms that the renewal order would apply only to some parts of it. It is also desirable to secure uniformity of application and practice among different police forces, airports and sea ports.
Alas, it is realistic, rather than choking oneself in ambiguity, to drop the words "temporary provisions", although I retain the strong hope that the legislation will not be a permanent part of our statute book. No one would wish to see that happen. However, this is not the year—with some of the worst incidents that we have seen and with the clear recommendations of the Jellicoe report, which endorses the value of the Act and makes practical proposals to preserve that value while giving considerable safeguards—in which to abandon the Act altogether. We shall support the Home Secretary in the Lobby this evening.

Mr. Hattersley: Has the right hon. Gentleman's old liberality so deserted him that his speech contains not a single word about the 85 per cent. of suspects who are arrested, detained without trial, and released because they are innocent?

Mr. Jenkins: I am aware of that problem, as I always have been. It happens not just in these offences, but in others. It was the case in 1977, 1978 and 1979, when the right hon. Gentleman trooped into the Lobby in support of such proposals, which he now regards as unacceptable.

Sir Philip Goodhart: The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) speaks with

natural authority, having guided the legislation on to the statute book. I have seen the legislation working from a rather different point of view. I served in the Northern Ireland Office for nearly two years, and on numerous occasions I had to make up my mind whether to sign an extension order. I have no doubt that Lord Jellicoe is right to recommend the renewal, the reshaping and, in some cases, the strengthening of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976. I know from personal experience that the time given to interrogators by the Act has been useful in obtaining information. If any one seeks statistical backing for that point, it can be found in paragraphs 53 and 54 of the report.
The Act has been useful in obtaining information that has thwarted planned terrorist attacks. It has been useful in getting evidence. It has secured the conviction of terrorists who otherwise would have gone free to carry out further attacks on the security forces or the civilian community. Directly and indirectly the Act has saved lives.
It was argued by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that the Act has been used to harass the Irish community. He argued that Lord Jellicoe supported that argument. In his report, Lord Jellicoe does not support that argument. He says that it is thought by some people that it is used to harass the Irish community, but he gives no credence to that line of argument. I know, for one wholly incontrovertible reason, that the Act has not been used in that way. It is that when I was in the Northern Ireland Office I argued that a bit of harassment under the terms of the Act would in some cases be highly desirable, but my arguments were turned down and not implemented.
I think that all hon. Members who take any interest in Northern Ireland will know that our main operational problem is our inability to get to grips with a group of people who were described many years ago in a memorable phrase by my old friend and colleague, Airey Neave, as the "godfathers of terrorism". Large numbers of low-level operators, the boys and girls who plant bombs and pull the triggers of guns, are regularly arrested, convicted and given substantial prison sentences. However, we all know that it is very much more difficult to obtain firm, hard and usable evidence against the men who organise and plan terrorist attacks and then send others to commit them. We often know who they are, but the evidence that can be produced in court is not available.
I have argued, and I still argue, that it is both sensible and right that those godfathers should from time to time be called in for interrogation for up to seven days under the powers of the Act. That would be an appropriately direct and uncomfortable reminder to them that the community takes a continuing interest in their nefarious activities. In the course of interrogation we might obtain some valuable information and evidence.
However, as the noble Lord pointed out, there has been in this country a steady development over the years of international terrorism as a counterpoint to what might be called Irish terrorism. There have been real fears that London might become the chosen battleground for various Middle East factions. Our freedom and legal rights gave gunmen more freedom to operate here than in most Western capitals. A sort of Gresham's law operates in that international terrorism can move from one major city in the Western world to another, wherever the laws of the land are less onerous.
In recent years diplomats have often been the targets of international terrorist attacks. I knew our ambassador in Dublin who was murdered by the IRA in a car ambush. Almost every day I drive past the burnt-out shell of the Iranian Embassy, which had to be stormed by the skilful specialists of the SAS under the overall command of the Home Secretary.
Nine months ago I had lunch with my old friend, Mr. Shlomo Argov, the Israeli ambassador. We spent some time discussing the problems of personal protection. He told me how much he had come to like and respect his personal bodyguards. The next day he was shot down and grievously wounded outside the Dorchester hotel.
Diplomats are not only occasional targets of terrorism, but on occasions they are the organisers of terrorism, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said in an intervention in the Home Secretary's speech. Some while ago the Jordanian ambassador was shot and seriously wounded about 400 yards from my home in Kensington. The gun that was used in that attack was brought into the country in the Libyans' diplomatic bag. At that time the Libyan ambassador was living some 40 yards from my home in Kensington, so I have some personal interest in the involvement of the diplomatic community in the organisation of terrorist attacks.
As the Home Secretary told us earlier, we do not know how the guns that were used in the attack on Ambassador Argov entered this country, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility that they were smuggled in through diplomatic channels. The organisation, funding, support and supply of terrorist groups in this country by people who can shelter under the protection of diplomatic immunity is a problem of some importance. Of course, it is not just a problem for us. It affects other Western countries as well. It is a difficult problem to solve. Diplomatic immunities cannot and should not be lightly set aside. It is a problem that we should discuss urgently with our allies.

Mr. Freeson: I sympathise with much of what the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) said and the mood in which he said it.
I knew Ambassador Argov personally and suffered shock and emotion after the attack on him. However, does the hon. Gentleman think that the subject that the House is debating is of direct relevance? Does he think that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 is a means whereby diplomats and their associates can be protected against terrorist activity or prevented from indulging in, and organising, terrorist activity, which I accept has been the case?
Would it be far better, in the cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred, if strong action were taken by the Government to order such diplomats and, if need be, ambassadors out of the country?

Sir Philip Goodhart: In answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, the report by Lord Jellicoe is of direct relevance. The Act gives the police, the special branch and our security forces the power to hold and interrogate people who are not members of the diplomatic corps for longer than they could before. That may lead directly to the provision of information that can stop attacks. I agree that the report does not suggest ways

in which one can deter those who have the shield of diplomatic immunity from using that shield to indulge in terrorist or criminal activities.
I suggest that a further study is necessary on this subject. I hope that the Home Office, in conjuction with our allies, will undertake that work. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that sanctions against the heads of missions would be the most effective deterrent.
I support Lord Jellicoe's proposal in paragraph 77:
I recommend, therefore, that the power of arrest in section 12(1)(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act should be available for use against suspected international terrorists of any group, cause or nationality, but that it should not be so available in respect of domestic terrorism unconnected with Northern Ireland".
I am in complete agreement with the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), who said that he found it difficult to understand why the provisions of the Act should not apply to all forms of terrorism. I am amazed that anyone as sensible and knowledgeable as the noble Lord should try to draw some form of academic distinction between international terrorism and domestic terrorism. It is not a sensible division. Most terrorist organisations contain a mixture of people who are motivated by different emotions and impulses.
The IRA is the terrorist organisation about which I know most. It has within it what one might call a leprechaun faction—a group of men and women who are primarily motivated by the desire to see Ireland return to some form of mystic rural life, surrounded by Celtic mists and isolated, as far as possible, from all contact with the 20th century.
Within the IRA, there is also a Mafia faction that is making money out of extortion, robbery and various forms of protection rackets. That group wishes to ensure the continuance of a low level of violence for the indefinite future because it is in its financial interests to do so.
There is an international strand within the IRA whose members are in contact with, and draw support from, terrorist groups on the Continent and in parts of the Middle East ranging from Libya to South Yemen. Where does one strand end and another begin? It is not a worthwhile exercise to make such a division.
I hope that the Home Secretary will implement Lord Jellicoe's recommendations and will follow the advice of the right hon. Member for Hillhead and not draw a false and meaningless distinction between international and domestic terrorism. The report is valuable in reminding hon. Members of the anomalies and absurdities that arise because Britain shares a common travel area with the Republic, and citizens of the Irish Republic are exempt from formal control.
Paragraphs 130 to 138 of the report describe the controls of the common travel area in practice. They might well have been written by that great master, S. J. Perelman. The noble Lord lists some of the anomalies. Travel forms are filled in at Heathrow but not at Gatwick. Perhaps it is the other way round. It does not matter very much. The fact is that every port and airport seems to follow its own custom and there is no common practice. However, even if the most thorough scrutiny became common practice at every point of entry from the Republic, the system of control would still be wholly inadequate.
Lord Jellicoe, wihin his terms of reference, made some sensible suggestions for dealing with the problem of the common travel area, but it is clear that his terms of


reference were not wide enough. Hon. Members should take this problem seriously. If the common travel area had not existed, we would not for one moment consider introducing it today. While implementing Lord Jellicoe's suggestions as an interim measure, we should consider whether further, more fundamental changes in the system are needed.
The report is valuable, but it is obviously not the last word on a number of important issues. However, it is incomprehensible that the official Opposition, who hope to take over the government of this country within 12 months, should propose to reject the report and the associated order.

5 pm

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: My hon. Friends in the Ulster Unionist party and I were glad that the Government decided last year to set up the Jellicoe inquiry. We welcomed it and thought that it was, if anything, overdue.
I assure hon. Members, and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in his absence, that the House does not need to wait for the contribution of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) to listen to a representative of a Northern Ireland constituency who feels the same obligations towards all his constituents, desires to see the rights of the citizens of Northern Ireland no different from those enjoyed by their fellow citizens on the mainland and shares, as we all ought, a feeling of uneasiness about the ratio between imprisonment and conviction to which attention has already been drawn, and about which I was not reassured by the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart).
My hon. Friends and I welcome the report almost in its entirety and support the Home Secretary's intention, if I have understood it correctly, to implement it virtually as it stands—I shall mention one or two qualifications—administratively as soon as possible and by legislation when time for that can be found.
In particular, my hon. Friends and I wish such legislation to be United Kingdom legislation. That is one criticism of what is almost an aside in the Jellicoe report. We not only do not wish provisions to be different on the two sides of the Irish sea, but we do not want the powers that apply in Northern Ireland to be tucked away in separate legislation for Northern Ireland.
One of the virtues of the Act, however regrettable its necessity, is that it is a United Kingdom Act, passed and considered in detail by this House and the Parliament of the United Kingdom. We hope that that will remain so for as long as such legislation is necessary.
We support particularly the proposal that the legislation, while having the misleading title of "Temporary" dropped from its heading, should be reenacted every five years. I thought that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was not accurate when he referred to that as "total re-enactment". It will be one thing for a Government of any party to introduce a Bill that happens to coincide with the existing Act, but I suspect that it will be a different Bill in a number of respects by the time it receives Royal Assent. Unlike an order, a Bill has to go through a gruelling procedure in Committee, when every aspect and every line can be tested for practicability and for evidence that it is required. So it seems good to us that we have the undertaking not only that we shall get a new

Act as soon as legislatively practicable, but that if there is still to be a successor Act to that it will be a brand new Act that will have to go through all its stages in the House.
My hon. Friends and I also welcome the substitution of a shorter period of residence for the 20-year definition—if I may so call it—of settlement. Twenty years is a draconically long period of qualification for the exercise of powers of exile from one part of the United Kingdom to another. Such a division of the United Kingdom is an object of antipathy to my hon. Friends and myself and to the public in Northern Ireland in any case; but the fact that to be identified with a part of the United Kingdom, so as not compulsorily to be removed from it, one should have had to complete 20 years of residence there has always seemed excessive. Whether or not three years is the right: figure, I hope that the Bill that we are to see—for this matter will require legislation—will include a period much shorter than 20 years.
My colleagues and I especially welcome something that can be done without legislation and I hope will be done executively immediately, namely, the implementation of the firm recommendation in paragraph 189 that no exclusion orders be made except after consultation with the police both in the receiving and in the exporting part of the United Kingdom. If that recommendation is to be fulfilled in its natural meaning—if the RUC is to be brought into consultation on equal terms in the case of exclusion orders to Northern Ireland—that will riot indeed remove the abiding feeling in Northern Ireland that the Act makes Ulster a receptacle or waste bin for unwanted potential terrorists from Great Britain, but it will at least be some answer to be given to those who hold that view and will go some way towards assuaging their irritation.
If I refer only to some recommendations, I do not intend to imply an absence of agreement with others; but there are one or two on which my hon. Friends and I have certain qualifications. One has been mentioned already by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) and the hon. Member for 13eckenham. It is that if we are to detach the Act from specifically Irish terrorism, from terrorism related to circumstances in Northern Ireland, we should make a clean job and relate it to terrorism as such.
As the hon. Member for Beckenham said, the attempt to distinguish between international and domestic terrorism is particularly absurd, when what we call Northern Irish terrorism is, to a considerable extent, based and supported outside the United Kingdom. The distinction is unreal in any case. We should much regret it if we were to find, as we may one day, an upsurge in this country of terrorism unconnected with Northern Ireland, and had no means of applying the Act to that upsurge. This is not romancing. Within the past decade right hon. and hon. Members have had their lives endangered by terrorist acts, for which the motivation had nothing to do with circumstances either in Northern Ireland or outside the United Kingdom. I hope that is one point on which the Home Secretary and the Government are open to persuasion.
Lord Jellicoe suggests that landing and embarkation procedures should be applied to all journeys between the island of Ireland and the island of Great Britain That is entirely logical. Such a provision would remove much irritation and ill feeling and the sense of unreality on the part of travellers who find that apparently no precautions are taken on one route while only too evident on some other route. It is right that the reality should be recognised


and that any procedures should be applied uniformly to journeys between the island of Ireland and the island of Great Britain.
Lord Jellicoe refers to the completion of landing and embarkation cards, and a word of practical warning might not go amiss in that context. It is easy for those used to whiling away their time on international flights by filling in landing cards to suggest that we should have embarkation and landing cards on all these journeys, both ways, at all terminals. It works at Gatwick because, unfortunately for British Midland Airways, the volume of traffic through Gatwick is small compared with the volume of traffic through Heathrow. But before the Government implement the principle—which we accept—that lies behind this recommendation, I hope they will consider the practicalities of applying embarkation cards, and consequently the requirement to hand one's embarkation card in and have it scrutinised before boarding, to the volume of traffic which travels to and from Northern Ireland by the shuttle services from Aldergrove and Heathrow.
I have a last observation to add to the general support of my hon. Friends and myself for the real improvements, the real ameliorations, which implementation of the report will bring about. In paragraph 21 of the report Lord Jellicoe refers to the fact that compared with the first half of the 1970s the volume of terrorist action connected with Northern Ireland has been markedly reduced since then. None of us certainly would query his attribution of that result in part to the efforts, and the increased effectiveness of the efforts, of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and of the security forces in Northern Ireland; but it would be wrong for an hon. Member representing Northern Ireland to take part in this debate without pointing to another and much more fundamental factor which governs the volume and the ebb and flow of that terrorism.
In those early years of the 1970s it was very natural—perhaps it was inevitable—for the terrorist organisations and for those who wished ill to the connection of Northern Ireland with Great Britain to assume from the policies being followed by Her Majesty's Government that Her Majesty's Government were, if not on their side in the matter of methods, at any rate working towards the same end. There is no encouragement to terrorism, and there is such discouragement to the law-abiding who are the front-line against terrorism, so great as the belief that the terrorists have success in their sights, the belief that those opposing them are not really as serious in their opposition to their aims as to their methods. In fact, the best period in Northern Ireland—not an "acceptable" period, perish the word—has been the years 1977 to 1979, when, under the administration of the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), no evidence whatsoever was given by Her Majesty's Government of the day of any anxiety to make arrangements that could be even be misinterpreted as leading towards the objectives of the IRA and its terrorist activities.
Only when no practical prospect is perceived by Irish terrorism that, by its means or by any other, its objectives will be obtained shall we see the cessation, which has to come some day, of acts such as were the reason originally for the right hon. Member for Hillhead introducing this legislation in 1974.
So, while we implement, as I hope we shall, the Jellicoe report and while we recognise, with varying degrees of reluctance, the case pressed upon the Government for the retention of these powers, we should not be under any delusion that, in the last resort, it is in this House, through the legislation and the policies that it supports, that the key to the continuance or the defeat of terrorism lies.

Sir Hugh Fraser: I should like to support the line taken by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary this afternoon and to express my amazement, which has already been foreshadowed by the amazement of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), at the attitude of the Labour party on this occasion. It is extraordinary that we should suddenly have the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) saying that this is the time to do away with all these things.
It has, after all, been a bad year for terrorism—or a good year for terrorism—yet here we have the official Opposition suggesting that this is the time to get rid of the Act. That strikes one as surprising. Having studied the preamble to the Act, I can only think that they want to remove from the Act the words "proscribed organisations" and the provision which deals with displays of public support for proscribed organisations. That may be a trivial interpretation of their attitude but their attitude is, in itself, trivial. I hope that the Opposition will explain what they are about when they come to reply.
My right hon. and hon. Friends who have already spoken, and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), have drawn the attention of the House to the problem, not only of Northern Ireland's terrorism, but to terrorism in general and to international terrorism, which, unfortunately, is growing. We have had not only the attack on the Pope in Rome, which may be interpreted as coming from forces hostile to the West—the trial is going on now—but other activities, of which we have not yet seen the full development, with new techniques and new weapons of terrorism. Without being alarmist, there is always the danger of attacks on aircraft with the new land-to-air missiles. Such dangers could grow and become the positive weapons of forces opposed to Britain's interests and way of life. Therefore, to say, as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has said, that the Act is iniquitous and has had no effect is entirely contrary both to the predictions of what could happen and to Lord Jellicoe's report, which shows that the powers have been of positive use in the prevention of terrorism in this country. I hope, therefore, that Conservative Members and a large number of Members on the Opposition Benches will support the Government's motion.
It appears to me surprisingly obvious that these methods and powers have been effective. Of course, it cannot be proved. Nothing can be proven in the area of prevention. The more effective prevention is, the less it can be shown to have been prevention. Some will say that it has happened by fluke or by chance. So all one can do, therefore, is to apply one's mind to these methods and to deduce from the evidence that they have been of use. This can be supported to some extent by the evidence given by the forces of law and order in this country.
I am sure that one or two improvements can be made to the effect of the Act. Lord Jellicoe suggests the


availability of legal assistance after 48 hours. That is a good point. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already made the point that the full use of these powers will be made only on his fiat, and not on the fiat of a junior Minister. Those are rather useful ameliorations to the harshness of the Act which contravenes, as it is bound to contravene to some extent, civil liberties. Where these contraventions can be reduced to a minimum, I am sure the proposals put forward by Lord Jellicoe will be welcome.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, the continuation of the Act is, in effect, a bridging measure before fresh legislation is introduced. It will take time to introduce new legislation and I hope that various issues will be considered during its preparation. I agree with the right hon. Member for Hillhead that the provisions on proscribed organisations should be dropped. They fulfil no specific purpose. The proscribed organisations are protean. For example, the PLO has 20 or 30 different variations. There are also variations within the Irish Republican Army. I do not know whether this will give any satisfaction to the Labour party, but I believe that we could drop the provisions relating to proscribed organisations and public support for such organisations.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South that new legislation should be in the form of a United Kingdom Act that applies equally to all parts of the United Kingdom. It should apply not only to Irish terrorism or Scottish terrorism but to terrorism per se, whether it be terrorism committed by an individual within this country, terrorism committed by someone who has come from outside or terrorism committed by a resident of Northern Ireland. The target today and the target tomorrow must be terrorism per se, from whatever source it may come. I hope that that will be the object of the measure that appears before a new House of Commons after the general election.
At this stage it is only wise to reject the Opposition's proposal—it is the first time that they have ever submitted it—and support the report and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Reginald Freeson: The best way of fighting terrorism and anything associated with it is by open justice and not by secret activity on the part of the state. Having reached this stage with the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976, there has been a victory for political terrorism, and not for democracy. In effect, we have given way to terrorism. The Act is the very form of legislation that political terrorists in Britain or in any other country or society wish to see a democratic state give way to introducing. It is their way of subverting a state that is otherwise democratic. It is their way of justifying much of their terrorist style of politics. I hope that it will be accepted that these are not facile words. They point to a fundamental issue which is far too little attended to in the modern world.
We are walking into the arms of political terrorism. We are walking into the arms of insensitive politicos. We are walking into the arms of those who reject the values that we should be enhancing. To argue the principles that underline the present approach is not to reject the fact that societies, states and Governments have from time to time to give way to actions on their part that are not normally acceptable. They give way to them because of the situation

that is created by terrorism. If Parliament adopts the sort of legislation that we shall be asked to renew, there is no excuse for perpetuating it year after year as we have been doing for nigh on a decade.
I regret that the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) is no longer in his place—he has his business to attend to, as we all have. When he introduced the original measure he did not do so, as I said in an intervention, in the mood and the spirit in which he spoke earlier. He stressed this afternoon that it might not be temporary legislation and that it might continue for a considerable period. If it had not been for a certain exchange that took place, one would have assumed that that was the spirit in which the legislation was introduced.
I have a clear memory of the mood and spirit that prevailed when the legislation was introduced, and of the style in which it was introduced. There were many within the Labour Government, as I was, outside the Government but in the House and elsewhere who were deeply concerned about the introduction of the legislation. We recognised with what I suppose could be described as hindsight that it was panic legislation. We understood the spirit and the mood in which it was introduced and we raised our voices inside the Government as well as outside, in the House and outside in the country.
It is not for me to go to the record of what transpired inside the Government, although it has become a popular pastime with some ex-Ministers from both sides of the. House over the years. I do not consider that it is for me to go into details of what transpired inside the Government, but when matters of this sort are raised in one Department anxiety and concern are often felt by Ministers who are not directly involved because they are not members of the Cabinet or because they are serving in other Departments.
I never kept a diary when I was in government and so there are no records to which I can refer. However, I was one of a number of Ministers of middle and junior rank who raised questions within the Government through the channels that were open to us, limited as they may have been. I expressed my concern about the legislation, through the appropriate channels. The right hon. Member for Hillhead was Home Secretary at the time and it was his view that such legislation had to be introduced. He said that it was a temporary measure to deal with an emergency and that if need be any subsequent issues could be dealt with at parliamentary level.
The Bill was enacted as a temporary measure. It was thought that it had to be done in the circumstances of the time. It was said that if there were a lack of evidence that the Act was working or was necessary we would reestablish our principles on the introduction of such legislation as rapidly as possible. Like many others, I sat in on the debates that took place during the Bill's rushed introduction. The debates continued well into the night. It is wrong to suggest that the then Home Secretary and his Government colleagues took the line that we heard earlier from the right hon. Member for Hillhead. We were reluctant and anxious about civil liberties. I invite hon. Members to read Hansard; the record is there. It is right that we should challenge the constant renewal of the legislation more strongly as the years go by.

Mr. Whitelaw: I understand the way in which the right hon. Gentleman is proceeding, but will he explain why he


wishes to challenge renewal when Lord Jellicoe suggests that the Act should be made permanent and I have promised that that is the Government's intention?

Mr. Freeson: As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I could not pursue my deeply held views when in government. One is subject to collective responsibility. I have consistently—not for the first time this year—been speaking and voting against renewal of the legislation. The records will show that and the fact that I held the same views when I participated in the previous debate. On that occasion I made it clear that I was not satisfied with a review.
I refer to the part of paragraph 9 of Lord Jellicoe's report which is in heavy print:
such legislation should remain in force only while it continues to be effective, only if its aims cannot be achieved by use of the general law, if it does not make unacceptable inroads on civil liberties, and if effective safeguards are provided to minimise the possibility of abuse.
Given that it is recommended that the legislation be continued in one form or another, Lord Jellicoe has put forward a number of recommendations which seek in large part to meet the last point in that heavy-type part of the paragraph—the desire to introduce effective safeguards to minimise the possibility of abuse, given the existence of the legislation.
I am interested in the principle that Lord Jellicoe sets out in the earlier part of the sentence, that
such legislation should remain in force only while it continues to be effective, only if its aims cannot be achieved by use of the general law, if it does not make unacceptable inroads on civil liberties".
I choose my words carefully. It is my distinct impression that Lord Jellicoe—for all the merit of the report; and there is a large part that is meritorious—came to an early conclusion that legislation should continue broadly on its present basis, subject to the changes that he believed should be introduced. Both from reading the report and from being one of the witnesses—if that is the correct term—who consulted him, submitted a paper and discussed the matter with him, as did many other people from various quarters, politically and otherwise, I do not believe that the case is made out for the continuation of this legislation
I recognise the difficulties that are referred to constantly in the House and elsewhere and the fact that one cannot prove the effectiveness of the legislation. That point will be made constantly, and I must reverse the argument. When one introduces such legislation a time must come, sooner rather than later, and that, unfortunately, is now, when the Executive, or those seeking to act on the Executive's behalf—Lord Jellicoe—must bear the onus of proof. When legislation makes inroads which we are all reluctant to accept and dislike into civil liberties, it is for those who wish to perpetuate the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 to show a positive need for the legislation, no matter how difficult that may be.
I have read this report carefully twice, and I do not believe that the onus of proving that there is a clear need for the legislation to continue has been accepted. Such information as we have points in the other direction. We have been over this ground before. The statistics were given in previous debates and have been quoted in the press, I do not intend to quote them again, although other hon. Members may well do so. Some have already been

quoted during the debate. The statistics, which form the only hard evidence, suggest that the Act is not necessary, and therefore it seems that the Home Secretary, Lord Jellicoe and the House are depending on the views of the police authorities on the need for the legislation and are expected to accept those views at their face value.

Sir Philip Goodhart: The figures relating to Northern Ireland are given in paragraphs 53 and 54 of the report when Lord Jellicoe says:
Thus, about 40 per cent of all arrests under the Act in Northern Ireland resulted in charge, and about 45 per cent of persons held for more than 48 hours were finally charged.
One can either give anecdotal evidence about particular cases, which I think it would be wrong to do on the Floor of the House, or one can refer to statistics. It is plain to anyone who has had operational experience and responsibility in Northern Ireland that the fact that 45 per cent. of those who are held for more than 48 hours are charged shows that the Act works.

Mr. Freeson: They happen to be a minority of those detained. I am more interested in the 80 per cent. or thereabouts—

Sir Philip Goodhart: Charges resulted in 45 per cent. of the cases.

Mr. Freeson: Must we spend the rest of our time bandying figures around? I can quote figures from the same report and other documents issued by the Home Secretary which show that the majority of people affected by the Act are not charged in the courts. They are shown to be innocent and are released. That is the fundamental issue.
Exclusion orders have been discussed by other hon. Members. I accept that Lord Jellicoe is doing his best to ameliorate the position, but no one has challenged whether exclusion orders are right, except my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who did so to some extent. There was a fraction of a move in that direction by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) when he spoke about Northern Ireland being used as a receptacle for people prone to criminal or terrorist activities or associated with them. That is one element of the problem. I consider it to be fundamentally wrong that—if I may put it this way without being provocative—while Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, citizens living in one part of the country should be removed to another part of the country—Northern Ireland—without the authority of the courts, but by the authority of a Minister.
We do not see the process in reverse—[HON. MEMBERS: "Or vice versa."] I do not wish to discuss the detail; I am concerned with the principle. The onus is on the Excutive—those who argue that this should be maintained in law—to show without peradventure the need for it. They must show this House, the guardian of civil liberties, that it is essential to have this legislation.
I do not think that it was essential to have the legislation before 1974—the terrorism had been going on since 1969—and I have seen no evidence in the report to conclude that to combat terrorism we must have a power to remove a citizen from one part of the United Kingdom to another, not by court order, but by the authority of a Minister.
For those reasons, I object to the legislation, and not for the first time. Even if this were the first occasion on


which we went into the Lobby against the legislation, it would be no argument to say "Why did you not do so last year or the year before?" On that basis, there would have been no point in introducing it as temporary legislation. We are expected to use our judgment, and at some point, as Members of this House, we are entitled to conclude that it is wrong to continue the legislation.
It is not good enough to argue that this is the wrong year in which to repeal the legislation simply because in the last 12 months there have been particularly serious and obscene outrages in Northern Ireland and parts of Great Britain. That leads me to conclude on the very note on which I began. If we conduct our affairs on that basis, we are giving victory to the terrorists, because that is exactly what they want.
I shall vote against the legislation. I did so last year. I hope that shortly good sense will prevail so that we can see an end to this legislation, completely and generally.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary expressed his gratitude and that of the House for the report and spoke of the distinction of Lord Jellicoe. I echo those sentiments, as I have the pleasure of serving with Lord Jellicoe in a different capacity on the Medical Research Council. The report is nothing other than what I would expect from him, having learnt to appreciate his work in that area.
Lord Jellicoe's terms of reference began:
Accepting the continuing need for legislation against terrorism".
In other words, there was a presumption that he would find that there was a continuing need. Those terms of reference were exactly the same as those given by the Labour Government to Lord Shackleton in 1978. It is worth pointing out that the then Labour Government at least accepted implicitly that there was a continuing need for legislation against terrorism.
Lord Jellicoe was also asked to look at
the effectiveness of the legislation and its effect on"—
individual—
liberties".
As has already been said, it is important that both aspects should be examined. There must be a balance. Although I did not agree with much of what the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) said, I do agree that individual liberties are important. They are entrusted to this House, and it is up to us to ensure that they are safeguarded.
It is in that spirit that I welcome the limitation of powers. They cannot extend beyond five years, after which there will be a need for new legislation. I am among those hon. Members who entered the House since Lord Shackleton completed his review, and I have been struck by the fact that each year the debate required under the Act has to some extent been perfunctory. There has been an assumption that the legislation was necessary. The Government, rightly in my view, have stood behind that assumption, and it has been difficult to question the movements in opinion and fact that have taken place in the previous year.
I do not find that a great bother, because I support the legislation. Nevertheless, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, it is appropriate that there should be new legislation every five years, because that would require a detailed, line-by-line examination in

Committee. That would almost certainly highlight changes that would be beneficial to the working of the legislation. It is particularly important that that safeguard has been highlighted by Lord Jellicoe.
I also welcome four of the other safeguards—the exclusion orders to expire automatically after three years; persons to be given seven days to lodge objections and also to be given the right of a personal interview with the Secretary of State's adviser; the absolute right of access to a solicitor after 48 hours; and more explicit guidance to the police. The last point is especially important in the context of Northern Ireland where some sections of the community still view the RUC with suspicion. I believe that suspicion to be unwarranted, but I recognise that it exists. Therefore, more explicit guidance to the RUC might help to counteract it.
That is also welcome because the police in Great Britain, perhaps because they are not as closely involved with terrorist activity as the RUC, may need such guidance to help counteract a lack of sensitivity in certain cases.
Those four safeguards are welcome because they protect the individual. Within the framework of the need for this legislation, which I do not question, it is important that the rights and freedoms of the individual should be safeguarded, because at the end of the day we are talking about locking people up, excluding them or interfering with their fundamental liberty. We must take care to safeguard them.
In paragraph 1 of his report, Lord Jellicoe states
that if special legislation effectively reduces terrorism"—
and he believes that it does—
it should be continued as long as a substantial terrorist threat remains.
I agree. He also states in paragraph 65
that if the power of extended detention were abolished, the police both in Northern Ireland and on the mainland would be seriously handicapped".
I also agree with that.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's intention to introduce a Bill, because, like others, I dislike and find distasteful the distinction that presently exists between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. We are all United Kingdom citizens and we should all be treated in that capacity. I have never liked that distinction. I find it objectionable in principle that people should be required to be moved from one part of the United Kingdom to another. Therefore, I agree with what the right hon. Member for Down, South said about Northern Ireland being the dustbin of unwanted terrorists from Great Britain. As someone who, by accident of birth, spent the first 23 years of his life in Northern Ireland I know that, accurately reflects the view of many people in the Province, and I understand why.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that when he comes to frame his legislation he should not think in terms of exclusion orders but rather in terms of preventing people moving in the first place. For example, if one were to travel from Belfast to Liverpool, one would be scrutinised when one arrived at Liverpool. If one were to be found subject to the Act, one might be detained and ultimately returned from Liverpool to Belfast. Should not that scrutiny take place before the journey commences rather than after the journey is completed? There would then not be the case of having to ship people back from one part of the United Kingdom to another. Our position would be more defensible if we caused these people to be detained at their point of origin.
The mechanism is no different one way or the other. Scrutiny would still take place, and I have said that I do not object to that. However, I should like my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State to explain why it would not be possible for that scrutiny to take place before the journey commenced rather than at the end.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a great deal of resentment at the moment about the legislation arises from the fact that when people land at places such as Liverpool the scrutiny that takes place may make it difficult for them to catch connections to go on to other parts of the United Kingdom? The problem with the hon. Gentleman's proposal is that, if the scrutiny takes place before the planes leave or the ships sail, inevitably some people will miss their planes or boats, often by only a few minutes, and they will feel bitterly resentful.

Dr. Mawhinney: I accept that in the real world there are always difficulties with any proposal. I am addressing myself to the fundamental issue of whether it is more acceptable in principle to send people back to exclude them rather than to prevent them from leaving in the first place. If this were done, it would be possible to investigate and scrutinise people coming into the United Kingdom from elsewhere. Scrutiny on arrival could then take place for the external terrorist threat, but scrutiny within the United Kingdom would take place at the start of the journey rather than at the end.

Mr. McNamara: How does the hon. Gentleman suggest that, we prevent people coming via Paris?

Dr. Mawhinney: Such people would still be prevented from remaining. I was careful to say that if people were coming from outside the united kingdom they would have to be scrutinised when they arrived and if they were found to be unacceptable they would be excluded to a foreign country. Exclusion within the confines of the United Kingdom is the problem, and the unacceptable aspect of the legislation, not the exclusion itself.
This change would have a beneficial effect. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister will remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) and I went to the United States some time ago to talk about the Government's case and the Government's policy, and to try to help the Americans to understand what is happening in Northern Ireland. One of the things that was impressed on us, I think my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest will agree, was that this Act has pinpointed, in the minds of foreigners, the distinction in British law between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and is seen as a demonstration of the disunity of the kingdom rather than of the unity.
If such a move were made in the Bill that my right hon. Friend proposes, it would help us in portraying our case both in the United States and in Europe, because it would remove this anomaly in British law which appears to suggest that although we claim to be a United Kingdom, we are not, in fact and in legislation, united.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) said that the only differences that had occurred between last year's debate and this year's debate were a particularly bad record of killing in the past 12 months and

the Jellicoe report. He omitted a third factor. The other change is that in the past few weeks the leader of the Greater London council has been to Northern Ireland. We are seeing, in the attitude of the Labour party tonight—an attitude that I, like others, find particularly strange coming from the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook—the effect of Mr. Livingstone and his colleagues.
I listened carefully and with interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Brent, East. He did not mention Mr. Livingstone or his excursion to Northern Ireland, and we all understand why. The influences that are increasingly dominating the Labour party are making themselves felt in the debate today, and will continue to do so. I hope that the House will not be deflected from agreeing yet again with Lord Jellicoe that the Act should be continued, but that it should be replaced with new legislation, not only for the individual liberties of the people drawn under its scope but, equally, for the individual liberties of the mass of the people of this country who have the right to live free from terrorism.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: On each occasion when we discuss the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act and of the Northern Ireland Emergency Provisions Act as they apply in Northern Ireland, I am ever conscious that outside the House there are bereaved relatives of the victims of the atrocities of the IRA and other paramilitary organisations. I am ever conscious of the people whom I know who have been maimed and who will never again lead a normal life. It would be understandable if such people fully supported the retention of this legislation on the statute book. They could be forgiven, if they listened to me and to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), for mistakenly having the impression that there is some sneaking sympathy for the terrorists held by me or anybody else who opposes this legislation.
With regard to my opposition to terrorists and terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland, I hope that no one living in these islands would, for a single second, believe that I could have a moment's sympathy with the actions of those violent men, which have brought such tragedy to Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, and into the lives of so many people.
I was rather surprised to hear from the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), who first introduced this legislation, and again from speakers from the Government Benches, the idea that in some way the Labour party is to be condemned for opposing this legislation in this year, with particular reference to the tragedies of Hyde park and Regent's park last year. There are no votes for any politician who opposes the Act. No one who opposes the Act can be charged with seeking the support of what might be regarded as an Irish vote in the United Kingdom, particularly in London. Whatever the sympathies of the Irish vote in the United Kingdom, these are far outweighed by the repugnance and revulsion felt by the overwhelming majority of people of the United Kingdom. I cannot therefore see that there is anything to be gained by my right hon. Friend or anyone else opposing the legislation in the Lobby this evening. Indeed, many of my hon. Friends, who will be opposing the Government, may have everything to lose by taking a principled stand against retention of the legislation.
I oppose the legislation because I believe that it does not do what it is intended to do. I believe that it creates frustration, anger and resentment within a vast section of people, not all of them Irish. There are many British people with libertarian views who oppose the legislation. That is not because they have any sympathy for terrorists but because they see the Act as an infringement of law and liberties that have existed since the United Kingdom came into being. I can speak with some authority. I was born in Belfast in 1926 when there was emergency provisions legislation on the statute book to deal with specific terrorism and the opposition then being shown to the creation of Northern Ireland. Every year, until 1929, that legislation was renewed. What happened then is what is happening now. It was decided that the legislation should no longer be called emergency legislation or temporary provisions. It was from that time to become part of the everyday legislation of Northern Ireland. The legislation existed until it was replaced by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973. In tandem with that Act is the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974.
Can it be argued that the existence of these Acts has done away with terrorism either in Northern Ireland or here? There are perhaps some people prepared to accept that Irish terrorism is something that we have to learn to live with, that it has always existed and that it always will. I believe that, while the partition of Ireland remains, no Act of Parliament, no British Army, no Royal Ulster Constabulary and no other security force can effectively kill terrorism. That is a fact of life. It will not go away.
I do not agree with the terrorism. I do not agree with the acts that have taken place in the name of Irish nationalism or Irish patriotism. Only this morning I read in the newspaper that the IRA in my city of Belfast has degenerated to the knee-capping of a young girl of 16 who had run foul of the terrorists. My opposition to the Act does not mean that I support for a single second what happened yesterday or any of the other acts that have taken place.
There have been numerous debates since the Act was rushed through Parliament in 1974. There were times when I have felt very lonely in the "No" Lobby among only five, 10, 15 or 20 hon. Members. We were regarded as a type of freak because we opposed the legislation. I have given my reasons. I have lived under oppressive legislation since I was born. However, the number opposed to the legislation has gradually swollen. I have been delighted to find that not all those who joined us were Labour Members. I hope that today a far greater number of hon. Members from various parties will express their opposition to the Act.
Every year, when the 1974 Act has come before the House for renewal, there have been objections. Minor changes to the Act were suggested by Lord Shackleton. Next year, or the year after that, I suppose, if the Act is supported tonight, someone will be suggesting the removal of a particular section or paragraph to make the Act more acceptable. Every year that the Act lasts, people will be saying that this or that part is unfair. It will be argued that Lord Shackleton was not criticising the Act. His findings were, however, tantamount to criticism. I should like to refer to some of the paragraphs of the review to show how the Act has worked to the disadvantage of innocent people. Paragraph 32 of Lord Jellicoe's review refers to Lord

Shackleton's recommendation that financial assistance should be given to the families of people excluded under the legislation. The review states:
After substantial consideration, the government rejected this recommendation, as also the related proposal that financial assistance might be provided to cover the removal expenses of the family of excluded persons: it was argued that there were other, higher priorities than this for new government expenditure
The Government were not saying whether it was right or wrong. I know of families where people lived here for 20 years but were split, half in Northern Ireland arid half here. The Government were saying that, even where there was a possibility that great financial hardship might be caused, they did not take into consideration the injustice done to the family when there was no evidence to bring the matter before the court. Their priority was not to pay removal expenses or financial assistance to those who were excluded.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook was right to refer to paragraph 55 which states:
There can be no clear proof that the arrest powers in the Prevention of Terrorism Act are, or are not, an essential weapon in the fight against terrorism.
That wording is important. It is an admission that there is no proof that the Act is having the effect that it was designed to have.
I come to paragraph 67. It begins:
It would be wrong to suggest that abuses of the power have never occurred".
In other words, there were abuses of the fundamental right of innocent people.
Paragraph 68 says, in heavy type:
I recommend, therefore, that the police throughout the United Kingdom should be reminded by the appropriate Secretary of State that the power of arrest under section 12 should be exercised only where the use of no other power is appropriate".
Why was it necessary to wait until now for that recommendation? The Act has been in existence for nearly 10 years. The recommendation was thought necessary because it had been abused. This puts me in mind of the Bennett report and the debate that we had on that occasion. Many recommendations were made to prevent alleged suspects from being beaten up by the police. It recommended the use of television cameras and said that officers should be there to supervise the interrogations. Those who supported Bennett said "It does not mean that abuses did take place", but, in my opinion, the whole world accepted that there had been abuse of that Act.

Mr. Stanbrook: Surely that is what Bennett himself said. He said that nothing was proved. He recommended the adoption of his proposals so that suspicion should be removed. That was all.

Mr. Fitt: That was 1979. This is 1983. If there were suspicions then, there are suspicions now, and that is why these recommendations were made.

Mr. McNamara: After the Bennett report there were fewer arrests under the emergency powers legislation and more under the prevention of terrorism legislation to get round the Bennett recommendations.

Mr. Fitt: I quite agree.
Paragraph 71 says:
I further recommend that the Secretary of State should grant an extension of detention for a full five days only when he is satisfied".
Then I come to an important quotation in paragraph 72:


I recommend that ministers in the relevant departments should take an active part in ascertaining how far the specific purposes for which an extension was granted have been achieved",
and so on. Then paragraph 73 says, in heavy type:
I recommend that where circumstances permit, all applications should be seen and approved by the appropriate Secretary of State personally, and not by a junior minister alone".
Then, in lighter print, which one is supposed to pass over:
As I said in Chapter 3, this is the practice in the Scottish Office and Northern Ireland Office, but not at present, as I was somewhat surprised to learn, in the Home Office.
We have been told repeatedly in these debates by a succession of Secretaries of State at the Dispatch Box "There can be no abuse of the powers, because I am the man who will ensure that there is no abuse of these powers." The first investigator did not say that, nor did the second, so perhaps this fellow is more acute than they were in trying to find out what is wrong. I repeat his words:
but not at present, as I was somewhat surprised to learn, in the Home Office.
The Secretary of State may not be available. He may have other things on his mind. Indeed, he may not be in the country. It may be left to his Minister of State, and there is no guarantee that he will see it. So one is left with a Civil Service decision, supporting the police decision to make the arrest and detention in the first place. That has all the trappings of a police state. That is how police states begin. They begin with minor incursions on the body politic, and they grow and grow and grow.
The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and I have said repeatedly that there is a racist tinge about this legislation. It is directed at the Irish people. The Irish people are no fools. There are Irish people living in this country who are caught by this legislation—people who have no time for terrorism and who have given it no support, people who have lived here for years and who perhaps still speak with an Irish brogue. That is enough to have them detained at an airport or seaport. Incidentally, the brogue does not need to be of the Irish Republic. Some people think that I speak with a Belfast brogue. I repeat that there are racist tinges in the legislation, particularly when a Conservative Governmemt are in power, because it was Conservative Members who set up the hullabaloo about the Irish people having votes in this country. They suspect that all Irish people in this country vote for the Opposition. There may be a few who are mad enough to vote for the Conservatives, but I forgive them that eccentricity. The Irish feel that the Conservative Government who are implementing this legislation have a natural bias.
The hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) talked about exclusion orders. Danny Morrison and Gerry Adams were excluded by the Home Secretary. They were kept in one part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland. I made urgent representation to the Home Secretary, as he will know, not to put an exclusion order on them, because it was having the same effect as this legislation. It was a bonus for the terrorists, Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, the people who fight with an Armalite in one hand and a ballot paper in the other. They were the victors in the controversy. They were kept out of this part of the United Kingdom. They told us time and again that they were innocent and that all they wanted to do was to put their case to the people of Britain. There is a seat here somewhere that could be filled by a Member of

Parliament, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Canon). If he wanted to put the case here for Sinn Fein, he could do so. He is not excluded from this country. Indeed, he has visited many of our universities. In my opinion, the Home Secretary took the wrong decision. By using exclusion orders in this way, he provides the IRA and the Sinn Fein with opportunities for propaganda.

Dr. Mawhinney: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will set aside for a moment the question whether the exclusion order should have been made. If an exclusion order had to be made, and assuming that it had to be made, is it not better for it to be made before the journey starts, so that people remain in the part of the United Kingdom that is their home, rather than be forcibly removed from a different part of the United Kingdom, back whence they came?

Mr. Fitt: There is no "Yes" or "No" answer to that question. Every case has to be treated on its merits. It could be a person getting a plane at Heathrow to go to Canada. After all, exclusion orders work against Orangemen as well, and there are many Orangemen who go to Toronto for the Twelfth of July. So one of the hon. Gentleman's friends might be caught. Perhaps if the person was found to be an Orangeman and not to live in Andersonstown, the exclusion order might not have been put on in the first place. My experience of exclusion orders and the detentions that take place is that one only has to live in a certain district of Belfast to be very apprehensive when getting off the boat at Stranraer to watch Glasgow Celtic, or at Liverpool to see Manchester United. People have only to live in certain areas of Belfast in order to be more liable than others to detention and exclusion.
With regard to the powers to prevent members of Sinn Fein coming into Britain, it is not sensible to say that, although Sinn Fein is a legal organisation in Northern Ireland and in Britain, certain of its members may not be allowed entry to Britain. To exclude them is to give them a propaganda bonus.
I think it was the hon. Member for Peterborough who suggested that the Labour party's opposition to the order was in some way influenced by the antics or tactics of the leader of the Greater London council. Anyone who knows my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary will agree that he is in no way influenced by lunatics such as Livingstone.
In Northern Ireland last week I read in the press a statement which has not had the publicity that it deserves. I hope that it will now get a good deal of publicity, and I hope that in particular it will be read by the people of west Belfast whom I have known and represented for years. The statement was published in the Daily Mail of last Tuesday and it was headed:
Red Ken calls for Sinn Fein recruits".
The report went on to say:
The GLC leader, Ken Livingstone, said recently that he would not advise anyone in Ulster to join the Labour party but tell them to join Sinn Fein. Recruiting for the Labour party in Northern Ireland would be encouraging colonial exploitation.
As a member of the Labour party and of the GLC, I do not think that Ken Livingstone has very much in common with my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary. Hon. Members will be as surprised as I was to learn that Mr. Livingstone was speaking at a Labour campaign for gay rights in Brent, East, the north London constituency


that he hopes to fight as a Labour candidate if he succeeds in unseating my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson).
Mr. Livingstone went on to say that there was a younger leadership in Sinn Fein that was involved in feminism, gay rights and other radical issues. Whatever the troubles have been in Northern Ireland for centuries, they have had nothing to do with those issues. The people of west Belfast would not in any way want to be associated with the people who were listening to Mr. Livingstone when he made that speech. I suggest to the Home Secretary that he should allow as many members of Sinn Fein as possible to come over to Britain in order to listen to the speeches made habitually at GLC meetings.
Since the 1976 Act was first enacted it has caused a great deal of distress to many thousands of Irish people living in Britain. They are people who left Ireland for many reasons to make their homes here. Many of them left because there were no jobs and no economic future for them in Ireland. Many left because they wanted to live in Britain, in what they thought would be a democratic society. Now, because of the actions of the terrorists whom they despise, the special legislation that was designed to prevent terrorism is ranged against them.
Later tonight I shall be voting against approving the order. That will come as no surprise to the Government. I shall do so because of my opposition to terrorism. I shall do so because I believe that, even with the improvements recommended by Lord Jellicoe, the measure would do nothing but give support to the terrorists in Northern Ireland—the people that I want to see defeated and wiped from the face of this earth.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has made his customary speech relating to the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order. No one doubts his courageous opposition to terrorism, but I take exception to his remarks about the Conservative party having a racist attitude to the Irish people. It goes with the assertion that the measure is designed for the harassment of the Irish people. It is, in fact, designed for the defence of the Irish people who live here and for the defence of the people of any other community living among us.

Mr. Fitt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way at such an early stage in his speech. I had intended to draw the attention of the House to a book that has just been written by an ex-member of the paratroops in Northern Ireland. It was serialised last week in, I believe, the Daily Mirror. The paratroop officer tells how he was in charge of paratroops when a riot took place on the Shankill road in Belfast in 1972 and how he told his soldiers to
Get in there and beat up those Irishmen".
He did not say "Beat up that crowd", "Beat up those terrorists", or "Beat up those trouble-makers". He said
Get in there and beat up those Irishmen".

Sir John Biggs-Davison: If any soldier behaves like that it is reprehensible. It is gratifying that the Army is called upon less frequently than it was to assist the civil power in Northern Ireland, and that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is in the forefront of the campaign against terrorism.
I was referring to the criticism that the hon. Gentleman levelled against members of the Conservative party in Britain. He mentioned the right of Irish citizens to vote and take part in our elections. Some of my hon. Friends would like to remove that right, but it is not the view of Her Majesty's Government or of the Conservative party. Indeed, I have submitted a paper to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which has considered the future of the Irish vote. I have given my reasons why that right should be retained by Irish citizens in Britain, and why we should expect reciprocity in the Irish Republic, as has been promised by successive Prime Ministers of the Republic.
I assure my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that I give reluctant support to the measure, but before I go further I apologise for the fact that I was unable to be present at the beginning of the debate. I had to attend a funeral of a friend and constituent. I hope that I may be forgiven for that. I did not hear my right hon. Friend's speech, nor did I hear that of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), the author of the legislation. I understand that he has not resiled from the stand that he necessarily took at the time in question. I did not hear the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and I apologise to him, but what he said has been fully reported to me.
Members of the shadow Cabinet have been taking extravagant and aggressive positions of late. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been compared with Hitler, Stalin and Marshal Petain. The first woman Prime Minister has been condemned for wanting to get all women back to the kitchen.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has been increasingly critical of the police. I fear that some of his remarks are increasingly resented by the police. Indeed, although the hon. Member for Belfast, West said that on no account would the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook be influenced by anything that people such as Mr. Livingstone might say, the position of the shadow Home Secretary has been drawing much closer to that of the Greater London council police committee. That committee recently wanted to give the "Troops Out" movement a grant of £53,000 to do research into the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 and to monitor the working of the Act. It is surprising, therefore, that the GLC police committee is not on the long list of bodies that submitted evidence to the Jellicoe inquiry. If it were, its position might be less ludicrous.
I was therefore saddened rather than surprised by the shadow Home Secretary's speech as it was reported to me. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to strike a weapon from the hands of the forces of counter-terrorism without offering to put anything effective in its place. Of course, he can say that he can do no other because he is bound by the decisions of his party conference. What happened at the last Labour party conference, however, and what is happening on the Opposition Benches tonight, is evidence of the physical and moral disintegration of what used to be a great political party. The extreme minority has conquered the responsible majority.
The 1976 Act has always been condemned by sections of the Labour party. When the right hon. Member for Hillhead introduced his Bill on 28 November 1974, some 60 Labour Members voted against their Government. Later the party conference decided that the Act should be


scrapped. But nothing has changed. Terrorism remains the same. There are ups and downs, but terrorism is still a real threat, not only in Northern Ireland but in Great Britain.
Like the hon. Member for Belfast, West, I have spoken in every debate on this legislation. I shall not rehearse the arguments that I have adduced in those debates. Whether supporting a Labour or a Conservative Administration, I have always spoken of my distaste that such powers are necessary. But the right to life is the first of liberties, and the Government and Parliament will fail in their duty if they take avoidable risks with the lives of Her Majesty's subjects. The balance has to be kept between the liberties of some and the lives of many. I welcome the fact that Lord Jellicoe has proposed ways in which the hardships of those who are caught up in the provisions of the Act can be alleviated.
We have to trust my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to a great extent. We have to take a great deal on trust, just as my right hon. Friend has to trust his advisers. The hon. Member for Belfast, West talked about a creeping police state. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would be the last person to have dictatorial tendencies, to be indifferent to civil liberties, or to desire the emergence of anything like a police state. He has been much criticised at various times, but not on those grounds.
When criticisms are made, whether in the House or in the GLC, it is worth remembering the great trouble that Lord Jellicoe took before making his report. I understand that he had discussions with officers of the Metropolitan police special branch, visited nine police authorities in very different rural and urban areas of this country and also went to Scotland. He scrutinised the immigration procedure at a number of ports and took all the written evidence submitted by political and non-political bodies. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will testify, Lord Jellicoe also studied an immense amount of official papers at the Home Office and examined a host of exclusion orders as well as visiting Northern Ireland several times. As the legislation is designed to deal with terrorism of all kinds and not just that arising from the Ulster troubles, he also examined the practice in France and West Germany at first hand before producing his report in February.
Subject to the annual renewal, the term of the legislation is now to be five years. I hope that it will lapse before five years have passed, but, whether the period be five years or 50 years, to defeat terrorism we must show that the democratic will to resist is not to be undermined. Terrorists remain in business because they believe that they can weaken that democratic will to resist. They cannot, of course, but by feeding terrorist hopes of British inconstancy the Opposition have deserved ill of their country.

Mr. William Pitt: First, I add the welcome of the Liberal party for Lord Jellicoe's report. I also add my personal thanks for Lord Jellicoe's kindness and tolerance when he took evidence from me on behalf of the Liberal party. I, too, have read the report carefully. It is a most useful contribution and an expertly written document.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) said, 1982 was the worst year since

1975 for terrorist outrages. Like my right hon. Friend, I find it strange that at this juncture the official Opposition should recommend that we oppose renewal of the legislation. Of those who intend to support renewal, I believe that I am the least enthusiastic, for several reasons, not least because I have two-thirds Irish blood. My father came from Belfast and my mother's ancestors were from county Kerry. Therefore, I feel as strongly as any hon. Member—save, I am sure, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)—about the state of Ireland. I am also a firm and long-term believer in a united Ireland, but I do not believe that it will be achieved through terrorism. That is why, reluctantly and with the least possible enthusiasm, I support renewal of the order for one more time.

Mr. Hattersley: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "for one more time"? If the figures and the situation next year turned out to be as suggested by his right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) today, would the hon. Gentleman vote against renewal?

Mr. Pitt: The Home Secretary has said that a new Act will be put into operation. I think that the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question will become clear as I comment on various paragraphs of the report.
The House must consider three urgent obligations in this discussion and in the relationship of Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom. First, citizens of the United Kingdom living in Northern Ireland are entitled to the same standards of liberty and civil rights as British citizens travelling and living anywhere else in the country. The Government should aim for that, and in line with that objective they should co-operate with the Government of the Irish Republic and the proposals for an all-Ireland security force that Taoiseach FitzGerald has advanced. Citizens on both sides of the border might then enjoy the same standards of civil liberty and freedom.
Our second obligation must be to deal with the conditions that give rise to terrorism, which is partly attributable to the appalling social and economic conditions in Northern Ireland. Only when positive steps to counter them are made will the long-term problem of civil disorder stand a chance of permanent resolution.
Our third obligation must be to co-operate with the Government of the Irish Republic to ensure that the standards of welfare and entitlement to social security in both parts of the island are as similar as possible. That would reduce antagonisms between the two communities.
Many hon. Members have talked about paragraph 55, in which Lord Jellicoe says:
There can be no clear proof that the arrest powers in the Prevention of Terrorism Act are, or are not, an essential weapon in the fight against terrorism.
We all agree that there never can be clear proof, but last year, above all others, proved the need for preventive powers. The present Act is not especially effective, but there is still a need for preventive powers.
I met Ambassador Argov, although I did not know him well. I had the most distressing experience of being on a kibbutz in northern Israel the day after he was shot. I was deeply moved by the people's feeling of despair that their ambassador should be gunned down by international terrorists. I also had the uncanny experience of being in south Lebanon about an hour and a half before war was declared there, which everyone agrees was the direct result of that act of international terrorism.
I am glad that Lord Jellicoe highlights international terrorism. We need legislation to combat it. I am puzzled about how Lord Jellicoe differentiates between terrorism in the north of Ireland, terrorism generated from outwith the United Kingdom and terrorism generated from within the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain that more fully when he winds up the debate and gives us clearer information about when the proposed new Bill will arrive.
The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser) hoped that the new Bill would be presented after a general election. I fervently hope that it will be introduced as soon as possible, and long before a general election, so that we can have a properly debated, properly amended and acceptable prevention of terrorism Act in the present Session.
It is essential that we consider exclusion provisions and how they affect people. Exclusion orders are often made unreasonably and, as the hon. Member for Belfast, West said, they cause hardship. They also break up families and often send people to parts of the country with which they are not familiar. They are a form of internal exile that is more appropriate to the Soviet Union than to Britain under the Government formed by a Prime Minister who often proclaims her support of freedom.
I should be extremely careful before I agreed to any form of exclusion order in any Prevention of Terrorism Act. I welcome the Home Secretary's response to what Lord Jellicoe said on the subject. If we are to keep exclusion orders, they must be hedged around with protections for civil liberties. The only way in which to do that is to ensure that the hearings are before courts and that cases are not decided by Ministers, civil servants or policemen, whether they be senior or junior. The hearings must be inter-party at all stages so that the reasons for exclusion orders can be tested properly and the evidence rebutted where appropriate, and if a person is to be excluded it must occur only after the most stringent examination of the case. All hon. Members would agree with that.
We have experienced the incidents at Knightsbridge and Regents park. It was my unfortunate duty to reply to the Home Secretary's statement on behalf of the Liberal party on the day of those bombings. I did not acquit myself well, not because of a lack of knowledge or reluctance, but simply because I did not feel that I had the emotional strength to do so. The carnage left us all feeling bewildered and nonplussed. The country felt the same way. Before those events I should have imagined myself standing here today heartily opposing any renewal of the Act, certainly in its present form, but I am unable to do that, even though it has had a considerable effect on many people in our community.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the Irish community, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead. It is an indisputable fact that the Act in its present form has had an extremely bad effect on many members of the Irish community. It has prevented their taking part in Britain's political life when they should take part, as they are citizens here. We should not enact legislation that so represses their civil liberties that they fear becoming politically involved and consequently ignore everything and go away. Many Conservative Members encourage that and yak on about not giving votes to the Irish. That is especially unpleasant and tends to racism.
There are many Irish people in Britain, as there are members of other communities, who go about in daily fear of their lives from an indiscriminately planted bomb. One hon. Member has been killed within the precincts of the House. Coincidentally, I was on the steps of St. Martin-in-the-Fields and heard the explosion. Terrorists do not respect the rule of law, and it is clear that in many cases the ordinary law cannot combat them.

Mr. Jim Marshall: The hon. Gentleman has referred, as have others, to the terrorist incidents of last year. We all share his sense of dismay. How does he equate that with the fact that 220 people were detained last year and that 17, the lowest number ever, were charged under the Act?

Mr. Pitt: The hon. Gentleman has beaten me to the gun by about 10 seconds. I was about to give those figures. The present Act is failing because of its provisions. It Was a hurried job, although not, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead said, a botched job. The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) is right. It is true that 220 people were detained in 1982, of whom 11 were excluded, six charged under the Act, 11 charged with other offences and 192 not charged. Since the Act came into force, 5,555 people have been detained, of whom 4,900 have not been charged. Any Act of Parliament that does that is ineffective.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is my hon. Friend aware that the evidence and information obtained from many people who are not eventually charged have given the police information about many would-be IRA activities?

Mr. Pitt: I agree with my hon. Friend. However, if legislation against terrorism is to be effective we must consider how it affects the civil liberties of British citizens. We must find a balance. I am probably the most reluctant person in the House to say that the balance should be tipped in favour of a new Prevention of Terrorism Act. The Act should incorporate all the civil liberty safeguards recommended in the report and should be brought before the House as quickly as possible this Session so that it can be properly debated and passed.
On that basis, I recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the Act's renewal, but I cannot and will not accept yet another renewal of the Act as it stands. Before the Act comes up for renewal next year, we must have a proper Act that safeguards the civil liberties of all United Kingdom subjects and redresses the balance between those who suffer unnecessarily and those who are caught.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: It may be correct, as the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said, that no legislation can wholly prevent terrorism, nor, as he said, any number of troops. However, legislation can deter and penalise terrorism. It is a weapon for the police and the military authorities to use in safeguarding the security of citizens, and therefore it is not possible to treat as a matter of principle the question whether one has it or not.
Labour Members' attitudes on this subject are disgracefully irresponsible. It is typical of their attitude to Northern Ireland to try to ride two horses at the same time. They have a proper regard for the interests and safety of the British people, but they seek to support the Irish


nationalist cause. It is impossible to do both simultaneously. They seem to believe that they can talk about the liberty of the individual and claim that that is the basis of their opposition to this legislation. However, there must be a balance between the liberty of the individual and the powers given to our law enforcement authorities.
In 1974, the then Secretary of State and the then Government and Parliament recognised that the law governing those who wish to perpetrate violence was inadequate, and that further provision to combat terrorism was necessary. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), to his credit, brought in this extra provision. He was supported by the Labour Government and the Conservative Opposition. The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Pitt) said that that Bill was not amended, but it was amended after the Shackleton report. It was confirmed by the next Labour Administration, and was supported, and is apparently to be amended, by the Government. It is grossly irresponsible of the Opposition now to say, hypocritically, that we must be concerned with the liberty of the individual and not to care much for the fact that only a few people have been prosecuted under the Act.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West and other hon. Members referred to the effectiveness of the Act in terms of the numbers of people charged. That is a completely false standard, because if one piece of useful information is obtained as a result of the powers no one can say that it has not been useful and is not necessary. In hundreds of cases such information has been helpful and several people have been charged. No one is charged in this country unless the case against him is, in the opinion of an independent legal adviser, likely to be proved to a jury or to a court beyond the balance of probabilities—[Interruption.]—or beyond all reasonable doubt.

Mr. McNamara: That is not and never was the basis of the provision. The basis was one of reasonable suspicion, and a person was not excluded on the balance of evidence.

Mr. Stanbrook: I cannot accept that. Much evidence never comes before a court because it is insufficient to establish the standard needed for conviction. Although when a person is not charged, in theory we say that he is innocent—many Labour Members have said that—in practice, in many cases much evidence has been useful and has justified the initial arrest.
We do not know where Labour Members stand on this matter. Do they wish to help the IRA? Do they wish to help the police in their fight against the IRA? If they wish to help the police, why do they oppose this weapon that helps the police to carry on the battle? Can it be for sordid party motives? Their attitude is similar to the Labour party's general policy for Northern Ireland, which, following another change in policy agreed at their party conference, is for a united Ireland by consent—as though any British frontier can be altered except by consent. What does that policy amount to? Does it not mean in practice that if the Labour party comes to power—I hope profoundly that it never does with such a policy—it will positively push the policy of a united Ireland to the extent of withdrawing from the majority of people in Northern

Ireland their right to determine their future? Would a future Labour Government withdraw that democratic right?

Mr. McNamara: Surely not.

Mr. Stanbrook: Labour Members cannot say "Surely not", as the hon. Gentleman just said, because a policy of unification by consent means nothing and is as hypocritical as their policy on this issue.
Most people from southern Ireland who live in Great Britain or Northern Ireland are entitled, after five years, by the simple act of registration to become British citizens. By so doing, they commit themselves to the country. They perform an act of allegiance that should entitle them to the same rights as other British citizens. It is not racialism—whatever that means—or an injustice to them to say that if they do not wish to become British citizens they need not be entitled to every right of a British citizen, including the right to vote. That is simple logic. Therefore, when we discuss this problem, it is important to distinguish between citizens of the Irish Republic in this country and British citizens, albeit of Irish descent. The latter are welcome, and I would not wish anything that I said to offend them. However, if it is suggested that the application of this Act penalises them, those who say that do not understand those about whom they are talking.
It must be in the interests of citizens of the Irish Republic who live in the United Kingdom that the perpetrators of violence are located, arrested and prosecuted. They have to be distinguished from the law-abiding citizens of the Irish Republic who are living in this country. The law-abiding one will want positive action to be taken against malefactors from within their own ranks. Why is it at the moment that anyone speaking with an Irish accent on the telephone about such matters is instantly regarded as a suspicious person, who may be a terrorist? The terrorists have brought that upon the Irish community in this country. It is not something that the law has imposed on those people. The law-abiding community of citizens of the Irish Republic has nothing to fear from the Act, which applies to everyone in this country at present.
I refer to the application of section 11 of the Act. In many ways Lord Jellicoe's report, though welcome and helpful, is soft. I am disappointed in a way that he has not taken a stronger line over section 11. I refer to the programme that is to be put out on Channel 4 this evening that will show some interviews with terrorists. This subject arouses the anger of many British people. No British public authority should be the platform for the propaganda of our enemies. If the IRA is not our enemy, I do not know who can be an enemy. It is as much our enemy as was Nazi Germany during the war. For any public television programme to put the case for the IRA, as is suggested, is diabolical.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I am following my hon. Friend's argument with care. The television programme is said to include part of a film called "The Patriot Game". The television company will have to pay for showing part of that film. Some people are wondering where the money paid for the film will finally go. It might reach the pockets of Noraid and other bodies that support the IRA with funds.

Mr. Stanbrook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, which strengthens the case for action to be taken on such matters.
Section 11 does not go far enough. I am disappointed that Lord Jellicoe did not suggest that there should be a tighter provision against assisting the enemy. In the case referred to by my hon. Friend, one would have thought that if money were paid by the Independent Broadcasting Authority directly or indirectly to the IRA or its friends in America there must be a case for taking action under the legislation.
A few years ago, after an interview on television with a person who admitted that he was a member of the group which assassinated Airey Neave, I raised that matter in the House. The BBC should have been prosecuted for an infringement of the Act. The subsequent attitude of the BBC chairman was disgraceful. The IRA must be treated as enemies of this country. No point or purpose is served in talking about the liberties of the subject and quoting the relatively small numbers of people who may be charged under such legislation when we are dealing with enemies. They are enemies and should be treated as such.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Like the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) and one or two of my hon. Friends, I remember the introduction of the legislation. I remember vividly the emotions and passions at the time. The right hon. Gentleman's impression of what was happening and what was said at the time is different from my impression of the intentions of the Government of the day. Two things were stressed to us. The first was that the Government had to be seen to be doing something, although no one thought that it was worth very much. Secondly, they had to do something to protect the Irish population in various parts of the country. I remember some of the threats and incidents on my own town.
That was the background to the legislation. That was why we let it go through. That was why some of us laughed at a former Member of the House, but his view has been vindicated by the attitude of the Labour party. I am referring to the late Tom Litterick, then the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak. He said that we were panicking and that we would live to regret the day when we passed the legislation.
At the time we believed what was being said from the Front Bench, that the legislation would be temporary. We believed that it would protect the Irish population. The legislation has been with us for nearly a decade and it has been used as a weapon of oppression against members of the Irish community, particularly those who have sought to espouse politics of a Republican nature, which has resulted in their being made the subject of suspicion under the Act. The National Council for Civil Liberties has documented those cases well.
The Home Secretary and others who have spoken today have referred to Ballykelly, Regent's park and the terrible events at Hyde park as justification for the maintenance of the Act. However, not one scintilla of evidence has been produced to show how the operation of the Act could have prevented those terrible disasters or how it has brought the perpetrators of those terrible crimes to justice. Nor is there any evidence that the Act has to any great extent helped to curb terrorist activities.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have a long speech to make and have sat here waiting to speak. The hon. Gentleman has only just come in.
There is no evidence that the Act has worked and been counter-productive to the work of the terrorists. One may ask why we reject Lord Jellicoe's report. We reject it because we reject the first fundamental that he had to accept, which was
the continuing need for legislation against terrorism".
Lord Jellicoe said in the bold print—as the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said, we should read that and skip the rest—
if special legislation effectively reduces terrorism, as I believe it does, it should be continued as long as a substantial terrorist threat remains.
On the evidence, I do not believe that the legislation does that.
Paragraph 9 states that
such legislation should remain in force only while it continues to be effective, only if its aims cannot be achieved by use of the general law, if it does not make unacceptable inroads on civil liberties, and if effective safeguards are provided to minimise the. possibility of abuse.
If that is Lord Jellicoe's attitude towards the law, he should have said to the Government, "I will not accept it. It is wrong, it is not working and it is counter-productive."
Despite the haste with which the House rushed through this legislation—alliance Members should decide whether it was a good or bad piece of legislation in legislative terms—ordinary decent coppers using ordinary decent police methods apprehended those responsible for the Birmingham outrages. The House should bear that in mind.
I regret that this legislation is being used to discuss threats of international terrorism. The Standard carried a headline on the day the Jellicoe report was published stating that London could become an international terrorist haven and a centre for international terrorism. Powers exist under legislation and under the prerogative to stop people coming into this country if they are likely to commit offences of this nature. There is no evidence to show that if this legislation were to be used against international terrorists it would have more effect than it has had on our internal terrorism. There is a real and positive fear that if this legislation were used against other ethnic minorities—Armenians, Cypriots, Turks, Greeks and Arabs of one sort or another—they could find themselves in the same position as members of the fish community and would be harassed because of their country of origin and not on the basis of any real evidence.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) talked about the PLO, Libya and terrorist organisations. There is no evidence that the existence of this legislation would have prevented these terrible crimes being committed in this country or being planned here. The evidence is that most of these crimes were planned abroad.
The Act is wrong, irrelevant and ineffective. It discriminates against one section of the community, it is counter-productive and it harks back to the 19th century coercive legislation. The Act pollutes the body politic of Britain and threatens our many and important civil liberties.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) explain what he meant when he said that there was no evidence that the legislation had


prevented any acts of terrorism? He should consider the Birmingham pub bombings, where 21 people died, which was the reason why this legislation was brought in. There have been no more pub bombings or other bombings in Birmingham since. Which does he think is the most important—the loss of liberty to a few and the possible impingement upon civil liberties or the loss of life of people in my city?

Mr. McNamara: If I were to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, he would have to establish that there were many other pub bombings which did not take place as a result of what happened at Birmingham.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: There have been no more in Birmingham.

Mr. McNamara: There have been none in Birmingham, but there have been bombings at Hyde park, Regent's park and Ballykelly. There has been a wide range of other terrorist incidents. That shows that the Act has not worked.
I shall examine some of the figures and demonstrate the working of the Act, which can be seen from the Jellicoe report and from answers to questions of one sort or another. In Great Britain, from 29 November 1974 to 31 December 1982 the total number of detentions was 5,555. Of those, 261 people—4·7 per cent.—were excluded. The number charged with conspiracy to commit an offence under the Act was 119, and 275 were charged with other offences. The number of extensions granted on detentions was 754 or 13·;57 per cent. The number of people not charged with offences or excluded under the Act was 4,900—88·21 per cent. They were legally innocent of any charges connected with terrorism under this Act or elsewhere.
Of the 98 people charged under the Act, 12 were acquitted, three cases were not proceeded with, 83 were convicted and, of those, 50 were sent to prison. Of the 25 people charged with conspiracy under the Act, seven were acquitted, five cases were not proceeded with, two were awaiting trial, seven were convicted and five were imprisoned. Of the 119 charges from the 5,555 people detained, 55 were imprisoned. That is less than 1 per cent. of the total detained over the period. Such figures show the failure of the Act to prevent terrorism if one examines the number of terrorist outrages on this island in that period.

Mr. Stanbrook: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that in London the clear-up rate of crime is only 17 per cent. Is he suggesting that for that reason we ought to abolish the criminal law?

Mr. McNamara: There is a failure by the police, using extensive powers, to get more than a one per cent. conviction rate throughout the United Kingdom. Included in that figure—I am not stating only the rate achieved by the Metropolitan Police, which is abysmally low—are the higher rates of the provincial forces.
If we examine the figures showing that 1,888 people were detained between 1 January 1979 and 31 December 1982–1979 was in fact a hiccup year in terms of the number of people detained—we find that 1,319 were detained for less than 48 hours, 254 were detained for periods of between 48 hours and seven days, but none of

those were charged with criminal offences or excluded. Of those 1,573, a total of 16·15 per cent. were innocent and yet were detained for more than 48 hours.
That massive arrests operation—it became known as the fishing expedition—failed on two counts. First, it failed to produce evidence, because there have been no prosecutions. No one has been put behind bars and the number of terrorist incidents has increased. Secondly, it failed because it resulted in many people—not only those arrested, but families and extensions of families associated with such individuals—becoming hostile to the police, hostile to the legislation and, therefore, less likely to be co-operative when the police need to call on them.
The figures show that 82·48 per cent. of those arrested in 1981 were not charged or excluded. The comparable figure for 1982 was 82·27 per cent. When we examine why that was so, some frightening statistics emerge. The police have used the Act to try to get evidence. About 65 or 66 per cent. of all detainees have been held for between 12 and 48 hours—the maximum period before the police have to go to a civil servant and offer justification for a person remaining in detention. The evidence seems to show that the people hold police and grill them for as long as possible and let them out before having to justify their detention.
Not only are the police unable to produce a justification for an extension of their powers, but a degree of coercion is being introduced—fishing expeditions, the knock on the door, the threat, the nod or the wink that ruin family life and cause people to be afraid of the police and to think that the law is not on the side of ordinary people.
The more that one examines the statistics about the operation of the Act, the more one becomes convinced that there is a radical difference in the operation of the Act in Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom. Statistics show that, following the Bennett report, the Act has been used increasingly by the police in Northern Ireland as a method of getting round the restrictions placed on them by many of the recommendations in the Bennett report.
Secondly, there has been a higher rate of conviction under the Act in Northern Ireland than in the United Kingdom. That leads one to conclude either that the police in Northern Ireland are more sensible and discriminating in their use of the Act or, as seems to be the case, that they use it to get people when they cannot get them under the ordinary criminal law, in which case it is being used as a coercive measure.
The fact that there is an 88 per cent. acquittal rate in the United Kingdom shows that the police have failed to use the Act effectively or even sensibly or intelligently. If we compare operations in Northern Ireland, for example in the searching of houses for arms, where the police have acted on intelligence, we find that that approach produces much greater success than does the indiscriminate, unjustifiable and coercive use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act in the United Kingdom.
Generally, the Act is a sledgehammer for cracking a nut.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Who is the nut?

Mr. McNamara: Most Tory Members are the nuts, because they seek to use the legislation to justify some of the most reactionary attitudues that I have come across during my time as an hon. Member. I think specifically of the way in which the hon. Member for Beckenham said


that the Act was being used and the comments of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). Theirs were some of the most reactionary, Right-wing, Fascist attitudes that I have heard in the House.
If we consider how the Act has failed to work, we see a panic reaction to a dreadful situation. The victory is not for the powers of democracy, but for terrorists. The more that they can point to this discriminatory legislation and argue that it exists because we are afraid to use normal police methods, the more we concede the victory to them. It is terrible to have to say that. Perhaps coercive legislation could be justified if it were successful, but it is not successful and the Opposition are right to vote against it, in accordance with our conference decision of 1982 and with what many of us have worked for over the years.
We ought to have a proper system with proper respect for the rule of law, and not a system that pollutes our political and civil rights. The right of search under the Emergency Provisions Act has been put into the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970. Periods of detention under the Prevention of Terrorism Act have been put into the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill.
When one looks at the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which is now in Committee, one wonders why the Government feel it necessary to renew the legislation. They have taken many of the worst features of the Act and put into permanent legislation tremendous limitations on the liberty of the subject. Because of that, the next Labour Government will repeal the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Paragraph 10 of the Jellicoe report says:
The most important assistance which the police can have in the fight against terrorism is not special powers but the support of the public.
I believe that the legislation has the support of the overwhelming majority of the public. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) says that the Act has alienated the Irish. It has alienated very few of the Irish people whom I know, because it makes them feel much safer.
The question that we face is simple: if the legislation were withdrawn, would it make things easier for the terrorist? We might also ask whether, if the legislation were removed, it would encourage terrorism. I believe that nearly everyone would answer yes to both questions.
The Labour party does not answer yes, but none of us is surprised to hear that. There was, of course, always opposition to the legislation, even when the Labour Government introduced it. But it was their Act. Therefore, the principle was supported by them, and the principle has not changed. Terrorism has not declined and, therefore, in practice the Act must still be necessary. That is the basis on which Labour Members should stand. It was their policy in principle and in practice, and there seems to be no logical reason for changing it. But it is right that when the legislation was introduced in November 1974 about 60 Labour Members voted against it. They were, of course, what are called "Left wingers". What has happened since November 1974 is that the Left wingers have taken control of the Labour party, which is why the Labour party has lost so much popularity in the country to the SDP. It is also

why the Labour party conference last year voted to scrap the Act. Extremists in the Labour party now make the policy.

Mr. McNamara: It did not.

Mr. Lawrence: It is no surprise that Mr. Ken Livingstone, who is Labour's best-known spokesman on Irish affairs, and his GLC friends should consider that giving money to the "Troops Out" movement to undertake research into the operation of the Act was a good thing but ignored the fact that the real research was done by Lord Jellicoe. It is no surprise that £53,000 was the amount that some of the GLC police committee wanted to award to the "Troops Out" activists to help them gather anti-police propaganda. It is not surprising that the Labour patty has changed its position. It is a matter for the public to decide whether the change of that position has more to do with the common sense of the issue or more to do with the fact that the Left wing has taken over the Labour party.

Mr. Russell Kerr: It has little to do with civil liberties.

Mr. Lawrence: Althought the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) says that it has a little to do with civil liberties, those civil liberties existed just as much as a matter of principle in November 1974. On that position, the Labour Government of the time stood firm, with the support of other parties in the House, saying that those civil liberties were not to be weighed in the scale against the threat to life. If that was the rational, philosophical position then, it should be the rational, philosophical position now. In my view, the conduct of the Labour party cannot fail to give encouragement to terrorism, as would the scrapping of the Act.
I feel that I should give some reasons why I believe that those who send us here would support the continuance of the legislation. First, there is still terrorism on a frightening and terrifying scale. We have heard references to the tragic and horrific incident in the London parks in July, to the Ballykelly killings and to the attempt to murder the Israeli ambassador. As the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) said, this is a strange time to change course. But there are other reasons why this legislation should remain on the statute book. The police still say that they need it and the police are the experts. Many hon. Members think that they are experts, but they do not have experience of the operation of this legislation. The experience of the police is that they require it. Now we have Lord Jellicoe's report, which upholds the legislation and believes that it should continue. Paragraph 65 of the report concludes that if it did not continue the police would be seriously handicapped.
That belief is held by Lord Jellicoe, the police, the overwhelming majority of hon. Members and by the public, even though it may mean some injustice to innocent individuals. There is a misunderstanding about the benefits that accrue from holding someone under one of these charges and then releasing him. The police have made it clear, but Opposition Members do not seem to understand, that a large proportion of the information that they have obtained, which stops terrorism, is information obtained while the suspects are in custody, even though they do not obtain sufficient evidence against them to charge them. That is a substantial plus to the legislation. It is not simply a matter of weighing it in the scales against


those who are charged. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central did not give a satisfactory answer to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). If the test is the number of people who are brought to justice and the fact is that only 17 per cent. of offenders were brought to justice in London last year, does not the logic of the Opposition's argument mean that we should do away with the legislation that brought the 17 per cent. to justice in London as well?
The decision that the Act is necessary and helpful, despite injustice, is taken in the face of the argument by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central about propaganda value. We understand that there is some propaganda value to those who want to make trouble in Britain, either among the Irish community or anyone else. That is weighed in the scale, but it is insufficient to balance the threat to human life.
Of course, those of us who represent constituents who feel strongly about these matters realise this and demand that the closest scrutiny should be given to these powers. That has been done. It was done at every stage at which the legislation was considered from 1974 onwards. It was done by Lord Shackleton in his 1978 report and it has been done now by Lord Jellicoe in his report. Lord Jellicoe left no stone unturned. He had extensive discussions with the special branch. He visited nine police authorities covering different types of area—Scottish, rural and urban areas. He scrutinised immigration procedures at a number of posts throughout the land. He took oral and written evidence from political and non-political bodies. He studied a large number of official Home Office papers, including exclusion orders. He made several visits to Ulster and he examined anti-terrorist legislation in other countries. Most people in Britain would be satisfied with that type of scrutiny and with the calibre of the advice which, as a result of that scrutiny, we are now receiving. We all owe a great debt to Lord Jellicoe for that report.
A number of matters have been urged, as they always are urged, by Opposition Members against the legislation. We are told that it will weaken our defences and increase the power of the terrorists. The same argument was made in the debate on capital punishment—that capital punishment was what the terrorists really wanted us to introduce. But in that case we were able to say that, if it was what the terrorists really wanted, why were they threatening the House with reprisals if we introduced it? In other words, terrorists did not want it any more than terrorists would want the tightening up or the maintenance of rules which made it more difficult for them to operate in this country. It beggars common sense to suggest that this legislation is a gift to terrorists. Yet Opposition Members continue to state what is patent and obvious nonsense. It has been said that the police cannot be trusted to use these powers responsibly, but Lord Jellicoe's investigation shows that they have done so.
It has been said that these powers have no effect in preventing terrorism. That has been said time and again and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central has just repeated it. In paragraph 56 of the report, Lord Jellicoe says that
it has led to the charging and subsequent conviction of a large number of people guilty of very serious criminal offences connected with terrorism, which in many cases would not and could not have resulted from arrests under other powers.

That seems to be a sufficiently direct, powerful and convincing response to the argument that has been repeated time and time again in the House on that issue.
It has been said that the Act should not be extended to cover international terrorism. I very much welcome the extension to that area of terrorism. Many of us have forgotten just how terrifying international terrorist incidents have been in Britain but most people would want to do anything to stop the expansion of this form of terrorism and to reduce its incidence.
Paragraph 76 of the Jellicoe report states:
Many fear that London, in particular, could become a battleground for warring Middle East terrorist factions; my own view is that we may be facing this threat for many years to come. To date, most of the victims of such outrages have been foreign nationals resident in Great Britain, rather than United Kingdom citizens. There is, however, no good reason to believe that this state of affairs will continue, and in any case this is pre-eminently an area where we must develop an internationalist approach: terrorists, after all, are no respecters of national frontiers. I believe it is to be within my terms of reference to consider whether the arrest powers in the Prevention of Terrorism Act should be available to be used against terrorists not suspected of any connection with Northern Ireland. My conclusion, in relation to international terrorism, is that they should be so available. Terrorism connected with Northern Ireland is more intense in degree but is not essentially different in kind to terrorism from any other source: in all cases it exhibits similar features and is equally abhorrent. I am satisfied—and have, I hope, justified my view—that the arrest powers in this Act have been of considerable benefit in dealing with Northern Irish terrorism. This being so, I believe that they should be available for use in dealing with international terrorism.
International terrorism is often a community of interests between terrorist groups throughout the world. On 13 March 1979 The Daily Telegraph reported as follows:
An Iraqi Government official accused of taking part in the assassination of his former Prime Minister came to London last July to meet 'a world full of Iraqi intelligence officers"'.
It was alleged that a named man brought an assassin named Salem Ahmed Hassan
from Baghdad to London and then guided him to his target, former Premier General Abdul Razzak Al-Naif, and identified him with a handshake at the Intercontinental Hotel. As the general left the hotel on July 9 Hassan pumped three revolver shots into him.
He admitted the murder.
In May 1979, The Guardian reported:
An Arab girl terrorist … was gaoled for two years at the Old Bailey yesterday for trying to murder the Iraqi ambassador in London with a grenade.
In January 1980 The Daily Telegraph reported:
The Arab killed as he assembled one of two bombs which exploded at a West End hotel four days ago has been named … a Lebanese according to reports from Beirut.
The Beirut reports claim the bombs, which exploded at the Mount Royal Hotel off Oxford Street on Thursday, were meant for Israeli targets in London, and especially agents of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service. A group calling itself the May the 15th Arab Organisation has claimed responsibility for the explosion.
In July 1980
Kuwait business premises in London were given extra police guards last night following the bombing of an oil company in Mayfair during the weekend. The Diplomatic Protection Group was also alerted. Anti-Terrorist Branch detectives have not yet established a motive or who planted the 1½ lb bomb which blew out the front of the offices of Kuwait Oil in New Bond Street.
Another report states:
10 years' gaol for Iraqi student.
This was reported in September 1980. There was an attempt to smuggle TNT into Britain in tubes of shaving cream. The report added that a man
went on a pilgrimage to Mecca and came back to Britain last December 14 with three explosive devices in his luggage.


In October 1980
Two bombs went off within half-an-hour and damaged offices in central London. A group calling itself the Armenian Secret Army claimed responsibility for one of the attacks and for two explosions at about the same time in New York and Los Angeles. The Armenian organisation said it carried out the explosion at the Turkish tourist office in Conduit Street off Regent street. But the other blast, at the rear of the Swiss Centre, Leicester Square, appeared to be unrelated.
We have forgotten what is happening in our towns and principal cities. The Guardian reported in December 1981:
PLO link to bombers … the car bomb explosion near Hyde Park, London earlier this month … The device was being primed before being delivered to an anti-Khomeini meeting at Speakers' Corner. But the driver survived. After a number of fatal accidents when their bombs have expoded prematurely it is understood that the terrorists may have been helped by Arabs who also work for the Palestine Liberation Organisation.
Then there was the shooting of the Israeli ambassador which followed the shooting in Paris of an Israeli diplomat. That followed a bomb explosion in Berlin January of last year. The explosion took place in a Jewish restaurant. That followed the bombing of a synagogue at Vienna in August 1981 in which two were killed and 19 wounded. That followed a bombing in July 1981 at Piraeus. And so the terrorism continues.
This terrorism is not linked only to international organisations. Labour Weekly—an organ that I do not often quote—produced an article on 18 September 1981 entitled "Haven for the Nazis". It stated:
The arrest of seven wanted Italian right-wingers during police raids in London last weekend has dramatically highlighted persistent reports that Britain has become a home base for European Nazi fugitives. The arrests followed a request from Italian police for the extradition of named Italians on a series of charges relating to terrorist offences.
On 6 February, the News of the World stated:
Britain has become a sanctuary for right-wing extremists on the run from police forces in Europe. A News of the World investigation has discovered that a number of fascist and Nazi-style runaways have been given shelter in this country.
Bearing in mind the attitude of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), the remainder of the article is very interesting. It reads:
And Shadow Home Secretary Roy Hattersley wants to know why they are being allowed in … Following our inquiries, Mr. Hattersley told me: 'I have already written to the Home Secretary on this matter. It is a cause of growing concern. It seems that Britain has become the safe house for terrorists who are free to commit their crimes on the Continent before running back for refuge.
The latest of all the alarming incidents has been the trial of the three assassins of Ambassador Argov. It appears from an article in today's edition of The Guardian that Mr. Rosan,
the organiser of the hit squad, holds the rank of colonel in the Iraqi intelligence service, the Mukhabarat … Beirut claimed responsibility for the Argov shooting in the name of a group known as Al-Asifa. The PLO strenuously denied any involvement. Al Asifa, (the 'storm') is the name of the operational wing of the most cynical and ruthless terrorist group in the Middle East. The organisation's formal title is the Palestine National Liberation Movement Fatah, the Revolutionary Council, but it is also called Black June.
The article draws attention to a most alarming situation in which London seems to have become an international terrorist centre. The article mentions embassies. It says:
Police still do not know for certain who supplied the five guns and four hand grenades used by the team. But they have some clues—al-Rosan, according to Arab sources, was in regular contact with the office of the Iraqi military attache next door to the embassy in Queen's Gate, South Kensington. The staff there were always keen to help him.

The embassy has its own arsenal in the basement and is thought to have supplied the same kind of Polish-made machine pistol used by Said—the standard issue for Iraqi tank commanders—to the terrorists who besieged the nearby Iranian embassy in 1980. Two years ago the policeman on guard at the Iraqi's door heard an explosion from inside. When he knocked to ask if everything was all right, he was told to mind his own business.
How can it be against the interest of any British subject to extend the laws, if necessary interfering with some individual liberty, to protect society from terrorist outrages, which are growing and seem increasingly, if those articles are right, to be centred upon Great Britain?
Will my hon. and learned Friend tell the House what more this country is doing to deter such terrorism? What is being done to prevent weapons and ammunition being brought into the country in diplomatic bags? The House has raised that matter on several occasions, but what has been done? Are diplomatic bags searched or screened for explosives or metal? If it is said that such screening is contrary to the Geneva convention, what is being done to amend the convention? Something more must be done.
The public, who support this legislation, would be in favour of further legislation designed to ensure that ammunition that enters the country was not used by terrorists against their own nationals or, as inevitably will happen, to the detriment and death of British subjects. Terrorism is a thoroughly unacceptable feature of modern society, whether the lives of British subjects or other nationals are taken.
In the end, the issue between us is whether some interference with the liberties of the few is worse even than the slaughter of the few, let alone the slaughter of the many. Most people, in my view, would answer "Of course not. Murder and terrorist slaughter cannot be weighed in the scale with the removal of civil liberties". Most people would say that the legislation and its continuation is sensible, however they may regret its necessity. The public will be reassured by Lord Jellicoe's report and by the support and welcome the Government have given it and by the Government's determination to continue what has been to some extent a success, the removal of which would be a disaster.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) will, I am sure, be well rewarded by the Whips for his efforts. I am not sure whether he will be as happy tomorrow morning when he reads his remarks. He prayed in aid the views of the overwhelming majority of the electorate, but I suspect that it wants nothing to do with acts of terrorism and is not affected by the parts of the legislation that bite harshly on some innocent people. The hon. and learned Member for Burton should be careful. I believe that he was misleading the vast majority of the British public. He mentioned many horrible incidents of international terrorism and suggested that the legislation was in some way relevant to them. I suggest that it is a major error for the House to jump from descriptions of abhorrent terrorist activity and link them to the legislation.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) said that he and very many other people in Great Britain were upset by the fact that people who have been involved in terrorism were allowed to put their points of view in various television programmes. He should consider that carefully. Hon. Members have argued consistently that


terrorists should give up their violent activities and argue their case democratically. We believe that we have sufficient answers that the democratic process will prove us right and the terrorists wrong and convince them that they should give up their terrorist activities. If we suggest that they use the democratic process, we should be careful when we seek to stop them putting forward their views on television or in the newspapers. Only by forcing them to put forward their views can we expose them as fallacies. Abhorrent as it may be, we must defend their right to advance their views and we must then give our arguments. It is far better that we should debate these matters than leave these people to operate as terrorists.
Everyone in the House abhors terrorism whether from the IRA or other international terrorist groups, and wants to see such activities stopped. We want to persuade terrorists to settle issues democratically not violently. Our approach differs on whether we believe that legislation is an effective help. I believe that that is a mirage. Legislation misleads people into believing that something effective is being done whereas in reality it is counterproductive. That mistake was made when the legislation was introduced, and it has continued. I accept my responsibility fully. Immediately after the Birmingham bombings, I was not prepared to vote against such legislation, although I supported it reluctantly. However, I was a member of the group who voted against the legislation in 1976.
It became increasingly evident to me between 1974 and 1976 that the Act was cosmetic only and did not help to deal with terrorism. The Act made things worse by alienating many of the Irish community who moved most frequently between this country and Ireland and were most likely to be detained under its provisions. The police have been misled and ill served by the legislation. The statistics show that when the police have a good case and clear evidence that someone has been involved in terrorism they do not use this legislation. Other provisions are adequate. The problem arises when an outrage occurs and the police have little evidence. They are then involved in a public relations exercise, similar to that of the House, of trying to convince the public that they are doing something.
The difficulty for the police is that often the painstaking hard work that produces a conviction is not dramatic and does not result in newspaper headlines. As a result, they are tempted to go for the gimmick. Last year, the London police announced that they wanted to check all the lock-up garages in the greater London area. That attracted much publicity, but in the end it did not produce good results. However, it helped to convince people that the police were doing something.
On several occasions there have been well-publicised announcements that a number of Irish people have been rounded up in various parts of the country and have been detained by the police for questioning under this legislation. In most instances, those people have been released three or four days later with no charges laid against them. One is left with the suspicion that pressure on the police to be seen to be doing something led to those people being rounded up. They were probably kept for longer than necessary, because it would have spoiled the publicity had they been released at the first opportunity, and the police would have been forced to admit that they had done nothing.
The police do not need this legislation, but they fall into the trap of using it as a cover-up for the sad fact that often they have no hard information to go on. Conservative Members argue that what matters is not the number of people charged or convicted, but the information that is obtained as a result of the questioning. There is not much hard evidence to support that. Were those people to be persuaded to be sympathetic to the police, they would probably volunteer any information they had. Instead, they are alienated by this sort of legislation. Therefore, instead of getting people to volunteer such information, we must attempt to get out of them through questioning.
In many instances the information obtained is completely worthless. Often those who are detained make up the information, believing that if they tell the police something they will be released sooner. Quite often, the information that they give is more damaging to the police. It must be checked, and in the end the police cannot distinguish between true and false information.
The evidence in the report suggests that Lord Jellicoe was not really convinced. He was placed in a difficult position. His terms of reference asked him to look at the continuing need for the legislation. As he correctly said in the first paragraph, he had to convince himself of a continuing need before he took on the job. Before undertaking the inquiry he had to convince himself that there was sufficient evidence. He decided that there was a continuing need, and thereafter began the inquiry. If one reads between the lines, one can see that at a certain stage Lord Jellicoe must have been in considerable doubt about whether the premise forced on him by the Government was correct.
The introduction of the subject of international terrorism was, I believe, necessary so that Lord Jellicoe could convince himself that he should have continued with the inquiry rather than reporting to the Government. Having gone through the whole process, I feel that he wanted to question the original assumption.
Perhaps the Minister will explain why the existing immigration rules are not adequate to deal with international terrorism. According to the relatives of many of my constituents, the immigration rules present considerable problems for people wanting to come into the country. What extra power does this legislation give to deal with people coming into the country that is not already contained in the immigration rules? The relatives of many of my constituents are detained for lengthy periods at Heathrow and sometimes at Manchester airport. Their baggage is searched extremely carefully, and their whole motivation for coming into the country is subject to considerable scrutiny. What information can be obtained as a result of the use of prevention of terrorism legislation that cannot be obtained by the use of the immigration rules?
If it is difficult for people to come here on holiday, it must be virtually impossible for them to come here to live. If any immigration official had the slightest suspicion about their being involved in terrorist activity, he would, I understand, have every right to refuse them entry. We must therefore question the relevance of much of this legislation to the problem of international terrorism.
Like Conservative Members, I am concerned about the extent to which one or two Governments have misused the diplomatic bag to bring items into the country and avoid normal customs clearance. We may be thinking of introducing legislation that restricts the freedom of the


individual, but most of my constituents, and I suspect many others, would prefer to have such checks applied to diplomats. The Government must produce convincing evidence to show that there is no misuse of the diplomatic bag if they are to resist the pressure to impose tighter controls on the activities of certain foreign Governments.
The worst aspect of this legislation since it was introduced in 1974 is the way in which it has upset and alienated small groups of the Irish community—the very people whose co-operation we need to outflank and defeat the terrorists. Some of its provisions are particularly illiberal. It is not surprising that many groups find it easy to raise funds in the United States for terrorist activity in Northern Ireland, because by quoting certain sections of the legislation they can horrify the American people. They can convince them that by behaving in this way the Government are evil and, therefore, those people should give money to change the system. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act has been one of the most effective ways of raising funds, either directly or indirectly, to encourage terrorist activity.
Lord Jellicoe recommends that an individual should have the right of access to a lawyer within 48 hours. He also regrets the fact that several people held under the provisions of the Act have not been treated well in police custody. The Minister must make it absolutely clear that those two recommendations will be accepted straight away and that in future no one will be held and be denied access to a lawyer.
We have been correctly told that a 20-year exclusion was far too long and that it will now be reduced to a three-year residence. What will happen to individuals who have already been excluded to other parts of the United Kingdom and have a residence qualification of more than three years? Will they now be allowed back, or will they continue to be excluded, even though they have every right to come here under the new proposals?
With regard to the availability of firearms to terrorists, I should argue strongly that the Government must do much more to take out of circulation in Great Britain the number of firearms that are available. I have tabled several questions to Home Office Ministers asking why they are not prepared to operate another amnesty for weapons, and pointing out that the Home Office should be doing much more to collect these weapons I am told that an amnesty will not produce results because most people are only too pleased to keep the weapons and sell them among the criminal fraternity.
However, that is not the full story. A considerable number of arms are still illegally held and their owners would be willing to give them up. The Government should be weighing up this problem. In many parts of the country, I am told, if one puts the word round to the right sort of people, one can buy illegal firearms. The Government should consider offering rewards for handing in illegally held firearms, as that would help to reduce the numbers of weapons available and in circulation that can fall into terrorist hands. If the going rate for a firearm illegally held is £X, and the Government are prepared to give people a reward for handing in those guns, many of them would be taken out of circulation.
One of our duties is to try to get rid of the means of destruction and to make it harder for people to be involved in such activities. It is all very well passing legislation, but

the most effective way to achieve results would be to control and reduce the number of weapons of destruction that are available for use.
One of our problems in getting rid of this legislation is that it will not fade away. The Government must take a positive step to repeal the legislation, or fail to renew it. There is always the problem for any Minister, which I accept, that the day that he announces that he will not renew the legislation he can almost guarantee that some terrorist will, the day after, try to perpertrate some outrage to discredit the Minister and force him to retain it. The group that benefits most from the legislation is the terrorists, and they will try hard to keep it. If any Government announced that they would abandon it such people would try to perpetrate some outrage. The Minister must think carefully about this Act and of ways in which he can slowly phase it out as each section ceases to have an effect.
Moreover, the House must look at the way in which it legislates. At the moment, Acts are carefully scrutinised. On the other hand, orders are normally only guaranteed an hour and a half's debate if they are affirmative orders and are therefore unamendable. The more complicated the aspects of the legislation that we choose to pass by means of secondary legislation, the greater the argument for the House to devise some procedures whereby orders can be amended.
The true answer to this problem is that we must find political solutions to the issues in Northern Ireland. In the end, it is only by finding political solutions that we can outflank and outmanoeuvre the terrorists there and convince them that we can solve the problems through a democratic process rather than through an act of terrorism that is designed to destroy the democratic process. The trouble with this Act is that it does not enhance the democratic process but erodes the rights of individuals who begin to believe that the state is unfair and unjust to them.

Mr. John McQuade: We have listened to some good and well-meaning speeches today, but I must ask, "What do the people of Belfast say?" There are those who say that we are here only to talk and get plenty of money for it. I ask the Prime Minister and the Government to call the GOC in Northern Ireland and the Chief Constable and to put in their hands the means to restore law and order to my country.
We have suffered continually and 17 people have been blown up this year, but their deaths are taken for granted. Whatever the House does, it must do immediately. and then put powers in the hands of the GOC and the Chief Constable to bring law and order back to our country, rather than let disorder spread. It is no use giving a short gaol sentence to men who have committed atrocities beyond human belief.
It is the people of Belfast who are calling on the House, Members of Parliament and the Government to return to them the privilege of going to a dance, or going to and coming from their work, without being the target of the Irish Republican Army. The IRA has always been the enemy of this country. The people of Northern Ireland have always stood by this country in all her troubles. The declaration of the second world war was made in this country, but the war took place in Northern Ireland. We suffered from the Germans as well, and all we ask now


from hon. Members on both sides of the House is to be given back law and order so that people can go about their daily tasks without the fear of a bullet in the back.
What must service widows and children say about the House? What about the children who ask where their fathers are while we sit here? I appeal to every hon. Member on both sides of the House to get out and do his job, which is to bring law and order to Northern Ireland.
I shall not take up any more time. I know that there are other hon. Members who wish to speak, but I want to impress on all hon. Members that it is as much up to them as it is to the Prime Minister and the Government to ensure that the GOC, the RUC and the Chief Constable return law and order to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. McQuade) speaks with the passion that one would expect of a representative of that beleaguered city. He speaks with the conviction and experience of many years of hardship and trouble in the Province. I am sure that the words that he has uttered tonight, which call for action rather than words from the Government, will be heeded by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister, by enforcement officers throughout the country and by all concerned in the hon. Member's constituency.
When the hon. Gentleman speaks of "my country", I hope that he regards it as "our country", as we would not wish to feel—

Mr. McQuade: Yes, this is my country, because I gave 17 years service to the British Army, six years of them at war, and I made 20 parachute descents during the war.

Mr. Nelson: I hardly needed to question the intention of the hon. Gentleman's statement, but I wish to emphasise and perhaps share with him the point that the Province is part of our country. My credentials for speaking in this debate, representing a constituency in the southern part of the country far from Northern Ireland and not directly affected by many of his problems, is that the Province is as much a part of the United Kingdom, my country, as my own constituency. We have the same obligations for the civil rights, security, sovereignty, and national territorial integrity of that Province as we do for any other part of the country. I am sure that we speak as one on that.
I wish to pay my tribute to the work of Lord Jellicoe, whose investigation has been exemplary in the thought and analysis that he has contributed towards reaching his conclusions. The report is well argued and detailed. A persuasive case is made for amending the legislation, for introducing new but time-limited legislation, but basically for continuing the temporary security provisions that were first introduced seven or more years ago. I believe that the Conservative party as much as the Conservative Government should be the natural party of civil liberties. We, above all, should, and do, believe in the civil liberties of the individual.
Civil liberties mean many different things to many different people. There is the civil liberty to go about one's work and play freely without molestation or interruption, the freedom to speak freely and the freedom to argue for

political change or the status quo. All these are as much a freedom as the right of an individual who is detained or under arrest to be treated properly and not to be pressed unduly for a confession or to be detained without legal representation. The balance of civil liberties in the legislation is about right. It is necessary, given the continuing security problems of the whole of the United Kingdom, for the legislation to continue.
Much has been said about the effectiveness of the legislation since it was introduced on a temporary basis in 1974. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and particularly the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) referred to the large number of people who had fallen within the ambit of its provisions but who, at the end of the day, had not been convicted. They tried to put forward the case that the legislation has not been effective and that it has resulted in only a small number, or small proportion, being convicted or even charged.
The table showing that 5,555 have been detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act also reveals that over the past seven years 655 of them either had exclusion orders made against them or were charged with some other offence. Admittedly, the proportion of those who were charged and later convicted was small. The criticism to be made, as elsewhere in the penal system, is about the extent to which the police were right to arrest them for those offences. The case must be made that the proportion of those actually charged with offences and later convicted is substantially smaller than elsewhere in the penal system. It is not right to say that, because 5,555 were detained and only a very small number eventually went to prison, either the legislation is unnecessary or is working improperly.
The fact that there was sufficient evidence, in the view of the police, to charge a substantial number and for exclusion orders to be made against a substantial number—in fact, 12 per cent. of those detained had exclusion orders made against them or were charged wih offences—shows that there was sufficient evidence and suspicion that acts of terrorism might occur. That justifies the legislation and its continuation.
The arguments to demonstrate the effectiveness of the legislation do not exist in the statistics alone. There is the extent to which the legislation and its provisions have deterred people from committing acts of terrorism. There is also the political and perhaps unquantifiable implication of the extent to which a fall in the number of terrorist acts committed in Great Britain has influenced political opinion here and in Northern Ireland. There is an unquantifiable deterrent and political impact that goes beyond the simple figures that have been demonstrated in support of, or against, renewal of the legislation.
I have argued in favour of retaining the legislation and the introduction of a new but time-limited Bill. I should like to make a proviso, which I hope my hon. and learned the Friend the Minister of State will convey to the Home Secretary. It concerns the recommendation of Lord Jellicoe about international terrorism and the need to extend the provisions of the legislation to people entering this country from elsewhere in the world and incorporating such provisions in new legislation. The Home Secretary was rightly cautious not to declare a firm intention to include such a provision within the new Bill or, indeed, to act upon the recommendation in other ways. I hope that


he will be reticent about introducing a new and wide-ranging extension of the power of detention, exclusion and arrest of people entering this country from elsewhere in the world.
The legislation arose in response to a particular United Kingdom home problem. It was extraordinary and exceptional in that we were confronted with a number of terrorist crimes in London and Great Britain to which a response was needed and, indeed, was demanded by the public. It is another thing to argue that the rights of people from elsewhere in the world to enter this country should be curtailed beyond existing limitations imposed on them.
It would be most undesirable if this legislation, originally introduced and currently continuing on a temporary year-to-year basis, were to be used as a Trojan horse for a major new provision which would extend what even the Home Secretary admitted were undesirable reductions in people's civil liberties to many others who have traditionally been able to come to this country freely and who have regarded highly their right of entry to this country provided that they have a passport and come from a country that allows them to travel here. Some of the fears put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) that London is becoming the centre for international terrorism, including the examples that he quoted from the press, which has whipped up fear, were alarmist. Although we are all deeply shocked by every incident of international terrorism that takes places either here or abroad, particularly the tragic shooting of the former Israeli ambassador, we have to look beyond the emotion of the incidents and consider whether, in view of the number of incidents, there is a case for a major and significent extension of the law, preventing people coming into this country and imposing on them what I would argue are almost unconstitutional limitations.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I think my hon. Friend is getting into a logical difficulty. Let us suppose that two people who have established residence in this country, one from Northern Ireland and the other from an Arab state, both appear at London airport. Is my hon. Friend saying that if the same evidence is applicable to both, that both may be engaged in terror, the Irish potential terrorist should be excluded and not the Arab?

Mr. Nelson: As I understand it, there is already legislation that enables the police to detain a person who it is suspected will commit an offence. The Police and Criminal Evidence Bill that is now going through the House covers a number of these matters. Today we are concerned with legislation dealing with exclusion and other matters that relate specifically to Northern Ireland. What my hon. Friend has described is no more than a truism of the present position, because this legislation applies specifically to Northern Ireland. Part II of the 1976 Act, unlike part I dealing with proscribed organisations, applies only to Northern Ireland.
One can argue that there is already a difference in the treatment of people coming to Great Britain between those who come from Northern Ireland and those who come from, let us say, Iraq. There is already a difference, a discrimination. Jellicoe seems to be arguing for an extension of the law as it applies on a temporary basis to Northern Ireland to elsewhere in the world. We should think extremely carefully before doing that.
Not only do I think that the existing legislation for refusal of entry, arrest and deportation is probably

adequate, but, more importantly, that such a change would be highly impracticable. It would require immense scrutiny of virtually everyone coming to this country—a process which is difficult enough, in terms of manpower and expense, in giving effect to our existing immigration legislation, without extending it to this area. I question the extent to which the police would have been able to identify and detain the people who committed the terrorist offences to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton referred.
The most effective deterrent to international terrorists coming to this country to commit crime has been the effective way in which the police have dealt with terrorist incidents. I think, in particular, of the Iranian embassy siege and the action of the SAS, to which wide publicity was given throughout the world, and the statement that was made, I think, by the Home Secretary shortly after, that no one should be under any doubt that this country would not tolerate and would not be a haven for terrorism. That point was made effectively and it was heard throughout the world.
Prompt and effective action by the police—and, in that incident, by the SAS—had far more influence in deterring the commission of international terrorist activities in London and this country than the costly extension of this legislation, which, in my judgment, will have damaging implications for Britain's image abroad and for the important balance of confidence between the police and the public. Moreover, it will build on temporary legislation by creating a permanent position, which in my opinion is most undesirable.
I should point out to my hon. and learned Friend that a number of Conservative Members will look with great circumspection at any Bill that extends these provisions to people coming here from other parts of the world. I give a fulsome welcome to the main recommendations of the Jellicoe report. I should certainly support a new Bill that codified these recommendations, provided that it had a self-destruct process, as I believe is proposed, after five years. However, I should find it extremely difficult to support, as I am sure would a number of my colleagues, any inclusion in such a Bill of the extension of such powers to cover rights over people entering from elsewhere in the world. I hope that the point has been put effectively to my hon. and learned Friend. I shall not say that it was an aberration of Lord Jellicoe, but in my view his consideration of this matter was somewhat outside the remit of the review that he was asked to conduct by the Home Secretary, although he himself says in the report that he thinks that it is a reasonable conclusion to reach.
Lord Jellicoe has done a service to the House, the public and the people of Northern Ireland in coming forward with recommendations that will improve the working of the legislation. in considering the effectiveness of it, we should look not simply at the small number of convictions over the last year or two but at the fact that terrorism can spring up again just as easily next year as it did after a relatively quiet period in 1976 and 1977.
For those reasons, I believe that the legislation is as important to the security and freedom of people in this country for a few years to come as it was when it was originally introduced.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: If the course urged by the right hon. Member for Birmingham,


Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on behalf of the Labour party were to be followed, there would on 24 March be no prevention of terrorism legislation on the statute book. There would, of course, be other powers—we know them well—but, on behalf of the police service, with which the House knows I have a connection, I should like to say that it would be a most appalling prospect, particularly in Northern Ireland, if some two and a half weeks from now the powers that the Act has provided to the security forces were to be taken away.
I hope that every hon. Member who goes into the Lobby tonight and votes against the renewal of the powers will understand that, in the eyes of a large number of men and women to whom we look for protection, such an outcome would be a massive encouragement to the men of terror and violence and a stab in the back for the police and security services of our country.
I was in Northern Ireland earlier today, and I have apologised to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for not being here for his opening speech. Shortly before I arrived in Northern Ireland this morning, a little girl had had her torn kneecaps blown to bits. She is the most recent of the 162 people who have been kneecapped in Northern Ireland. It is done primarily to intimidate.
The last time that I was in Northern Ireland the bomb went off in Ballykelly. I went to Ballykelly and I saw the debris and, worse than that, the human anguish of the soldiers and their girl friends who had been killed, lacerated and maimed for life. An experience of that sort makes an impact.
When I went to Northern Ireland on the previous occasion, not long before that, I was in the police station in Crossmaglen when an explosion was heard. A car bomb had blown up about 200 yards away and a young British soldier of the fusiliers had been most terribly wounded. The helicopters got him out. He lingered for a while in the severe burns unit but then he died. He was one of just over 2,000 British dead in Northern Ireland over the past 10 or 12 years.
About 40,000 of our fellow citizens have been killed, injured or wounded by terrorists in Northern Ireland. Those who have to live with this, whether they be Catholic or Protestant, would, if they sat in this House for a moment, believe that they were in a world that bore no resemblance whatever to the world in which they must conduct their lives.
It is not just a matter of the human experiences but of the appalling international comparisons. The other day Interpol published a league table of the number of deaths of members of police and security forces. Italy scored fairly highly. In every 100,000 security people in Italy, quite a large number have been killed in the past 10 years. India was high on the list and the Bahamas higher. Guatemala was very high. Among the worst was El Salvador, with no fewer than 74·9 of every 100,000 of its police and security personnel killed by terrorists in the past 10 years. Northern Ireland, however, led all the rest. There were more than double the number of killings of police and security personnel in Northern Ireland than in El Salvador. That is the statistical comparison of our country at the moment.
I received today the report of the Northern Ireland police authority. It contains much interesting information, but for the years since 1970, when the authority was set

up, most of the pages are devoted to what is called the roll of honour. There is page after page of the names of constables, sergeants and other members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who were killed on duty because they were policemen. No rational human being can read of the deaths of Constable Raymond Wylie, Constable Ronald MacAuley, Constable David Purvis, Constable William John McElveen and page after page more without at least asking what on earth we would be doing if we threw out the order today.

Mr. Clive Soley: I cannot let the hon. Gentleman get away with the way in which he is putting his argument. He is implying that those who intend to vote against the order approve of terrorism. He knows that many of those who oppose the legislation share his knowledge and experiences. The question he must consider is whether the legislation is counter-productive. If he considers the list of countries that he has given, he will see that the counter-productive nature of anti-terrorist legislation is clearly apparent.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has his views and I have mine.
Of course the only justification for legislation such as this must be, as Lord Jellicoe said, whether it is effective. Let us consider two sets of figures. In 1972 there were 12,000 shooting and bombing incidents in Northern Ireland. In 1974 there were 45 deaths on this side of the water. Today, thank God, the numbers have fallen drastically. One may be wrong, but it seems that the carnage of the 1970s is no longer the norm. The reasons for the decline are, of course, numerous. I can identify at least six.
There is the increased effectiveness of the security forces. There is the improved intelligence of the police, enabling them to detect weapons-running. There is the growing rejection by the community, both Catholic and Protestant, of the use of violence to achieve political change. There is the drying up, to a great extent, of IRA funding in the United States, for which we can pay some tribute to the FBI. There is also the greater selectivity of the terrorists themselves in choosing their targets. There is also—I believe that this is very important—the improved cross-border co-operation that is now being achieved. We must try to extend that co-operation politically, culturally and commercially, and above all in security.
There can be no doubt, however, that the Act has also contributed. No hon. Member can say with certainty how much it has contributed, but in my judgment it has certainly contributed. I base that judgment not on my own perceptions because I am not a professional. No hon. Member is a professional and none of us is in the front line. With the single exception of Airey Neave, none-of us so far has had to bear the brunt of the terror, and I hope that we never shall.

Mr. William Wilson: What about the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)?

Mr. Griffiths: All right, I will include him, although—thank God—he was not killed.

Mr. Wilson: He has certainly borne the brunt.

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, I accept that. Nevertheless, very few of us have.
In circumstances in which we are not professionals and are not ourselves in the front line, we do well to consult those who are. I believe—I say this, I hope, without offence—that the police service in Northern Ireland has earned the right to be heard in the House. It has earned that right the hard way, with its blood.
The police service has no doubt at all that the provisions of the Act assist in the prevention of terrorist crime. The most important benefit is through intelligence. Today, intelligence is not pulled out with the fingernails in Castlereagh or anywhere like that. It is neither more nor less than the painstaking and systematic putting together of chains of events and circumstances—a clue here, a thread there, an inference in one place and a piece of hard fact in another. It is the assembly of those small details that adds up to police intelligence. That is how it works. It does not always work to bring about arrest or conviction. That is why it is really beside the point to sum up the figures and point out that the number of arrests was X and the number of convictions was Y. The important question is the extent to which the assembly of intelligence actually prevents terrorist acts from taking place. That, by definition, is immeasurable.
I believe that the police derive great benefit in intelligence gathering from the operation of the Act. I am sure that that is what led Lord Jellicoe to his principal conclusion. This can be summed up in two questions. Is there a terrorist threat? Lord Jellicoe is clear that there is. Secondly, does special legislation help to reduce that threat? Lord Jellicoe's answer is that at present he believes that it does.
Lord Jellicoe goes further to identify the international threat, to which reference has already been made. There is evidence that international terrorism is a rapid growth industry. International terrorist organisations co-operate on money, weapons, training, tactics, refuges and intelligence. I take just one of thousands of examples. Not long ago, a Swiss bank was burgled. The stolen funds turned up in the hands of PLO factions in the Yemen, the Baader-Meinhof organisation in Germany, the Red Brigades in Italy as well as in Libya and Uganda and among the IRA. The dispersal of the banknotes that were taken from the bank proves beyond peradventure that international terrorists are now increasingly co-operating. They are doing so in the search for more sophisticated weapons such as laser-guided weapons and rockets.
In those circumstances, the time has come for us, not through this measure, but through the new legislation that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary forecast, to provide stronger powers to prevent international terrorists coming to Britain. Lord Jellicoe recommends much better facilities for interrogation and detention in the ports. He is absolutely right. Some of the detention facilities are appalling and must be improved. He also strongly suggests that the immigration service should work more closely with the special branch in assisting with the questioning and prevention of entry of would-be terrorists. That view is sound. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend who will wind up will say whether the Home Office intends to give the immigration service more training and, perhaps, more advice about how best to co-operate at the ports with the special branch in the detection of would-be terrorists.
Lord Jellicoe is right when he says that citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies should no longer be liable to exclusion from that part of the United Kingdom in which they are settled. I am sure that that is a proper

reform and I look to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to implement it. In implementing it, he should consider a little further the argument that Northern Ireland is a dustbin for terrorists because they are excluded from the mainland. Lord Jellicoe has the right answer when, at paragraph 189, he says:
all applications for the exclusion of a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies should include the direct views of the police in both the 'excluding' and the 'receiving' territory".
That is important, otherwise there is a great risk of excluding people from here and making great difficulties there.

Sir Peter Mills: This is the first time that I have spoken in a debate about terrorism and Northern Ireland for 10 years. Some hon. Members will recall that I was a Minister in Northern Ireland for nearly two years. I have not spoken on the subject since. My experiences in Northern Ireland those many years ago made me feel strongly that if other hon. Members had shared my experiences of 1972 and 1973 they would, perhaps., be a little more determined to ensure that the measures continue.
I well remember the ghastly time that many of us, let alone the people of Northern Ireland, went through. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. McQuade) reiterated the feeling of many people in Northern Ireland about the constant bombings, assassinations and the awful fear that stalks the Province. In the rural areas, for which I was responsible, there was a terrible fear of not knowing who one's friends and enemies were. That was especially so for farmers, and many difficulties were brought on by it.
Firm measures had to be taken and they have produced results. The problem could have become even worse. Measures, no matter how unpleasant and how much they restrict civil liberties, must be taken now. The police in Northern Ireland, let alone in Britain, would be in an even more difficult position if we did not have such special measures. The position is neither normal nor pleasant, and it is easy for those who live here in comfort and security to forget the conditions in which people live in Northern Ireland.
I have read Lord Jellicoe's wise report, and agree with much of it, especially the words on the first page:
If special legislation effectively reduces terrorism, as I believe it does, it should be continued as long as a substantial terrorist threat remains.
The threat remains, and who can say that it does not? The police, both here and in Northern Ireland, would be seriously handicapped if the measures were withdrawn.
The House must make a careful decision, because the nation would feel that, without those powers, there would be even more unease and uncertainty, and that the Government were not doing all that they could to deal with terrorists and the frightful dangers that they represent. Harsh and unpleasant measures must be taken, as they were in the past. I hope that I need never again take some of the actions that I did as duty Minister. I felt a heavy responsibility when, after reading reports constantly, I had to put people away. There was little freedom or civil liberty, but in the circumstances it had to be done., as it must be done today.
Lord Jellicoe suggests that there should be annual renewals of the Act for a fixed period of five years. If we had those annual reviews, it would give a clear signal to


the terrorists that we meant business, and it would give the police and others the confidence to continue their difficult work.
I cannot agree with some of the points made about international terrorism. There is some connection between terrorists in Northern Ireland and in other parts of the world. Although I do not wish the powers to be extended, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will ensure that something is done to further the control of international terrorism. Although we all regret the need for such legislation, it is important to continue it. It is worth having such legislation, with all its restrictions on civil liberties, if it curbs terrorism. Measures had to be taken many years ago and must still be taken.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: We have heard a tremendous amount about the problems of Northern Ireland and what happens in the Province, but what concerns many of us is the effect on the rest of the United Kingdom of the fact that the people in the Northern Irish part cannot get on together. Sectarianism is an evil and obscene weapon that brings a blight upon the lives of the rest of us. I had the honour to be deputy leader of the West Midlands county council on a certain night in 1974 when I was telephoned and told that two bombs had gone off in Birmingham. When I got there the sad remains of Birmingham people were being literally shovelled into sacks, and other people were being taken away. Twenty-one people died and 180 were injured.
The Government of the day, with commendable speed, brought in a Bill which had the support of the House, except for about 60 Labour Members. What did the 1974 Act do? It proscribed the IRA in Great Britain. Is that not still right? It gave the Home Secretary powers to exclude from Britain persons suspected of involvement in terrorism. Is that not still right today? It gave the police the power to hold suspects for up to seven days, with the permission of the Home Office. Is that not still right today, when terrorism is expected? It was to the great credit of the Labour Government that they introduced the measure.
In 1976 the then Government made further changes to the Act. Since then the Labour party's policy seems to have shifted, and a man called Livingstone has been getting more publicity than any other Labour party speaker on Irish affairs or any other affairs. According to some, what was right in 1974 for the people of the city that I represent, and was still right, as amended by the then Government in 1976 in their attempts to bring peace to Northern Ireland, is wrong now. However, no one has said why it should be wrong today. I cannot believe that the people of Birmingham and other parts of the Kingdom that have been plagued by terrorism would think it right to repeal the Act at this time.
The Jellicoe report contains no harsh words or extremism. It says, rightly, only that every five years the Act should not just be amended but completely rethought. That has to be right. Surely what we are doing today and have done for many hours this afternoon—not late in the night, as has often happened—is to discuss the Jellicoe report calmly and sensibly. I have heard not one sensible argument why the Act should be repealed, unless something better is put in its place.
It is not sufficient to say that the general law is adequate. To say that the Act penalises Irish people and that the police in Birmingham hound people because they have an Irish accent is obscene and untrue. The Irish citizens of my city are treated, rightly, as proper and rounded members of the community, as we all are. Not one good case has been made for voting against the order. Those who vote against it will do so at the peril not of their lives but of the lives of those whom they represent.

Mr. Jim Marshall: It is appropriate that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) should have been the last Back-Bench speaker. He mentioned the Irish people in Birmingham. He said that they did not feel excluded from the rest of the community and that they had a right and proper place in the civil life of Birmingham. I remind the hon. Gentleman that that was not so in late November 1974. We were told by the then Home Secretary, now the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), that unless action was seen to be taken vigilante gangs would roam the streets of Birmingham taking action against Irish people.
It was against that background that the then Home Secretary introduced what he called "draconian" legislation. The right hon. Gentleman said
These powers, Mr. Speaker, are draconian. In combination they are unprecedented in peace time. I believe they are fully justified to meet the clear and present danger.
The clear and present danger to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was the position in Birmingham.
That view was reinforced by the then leader of the Conservative Opposition, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who said:
I think we would be at one with the Home Secretary—as would the whole House—in saying that in a free, democratic society we prefer not to have to take such steps. But the Home Secretary is right; the present situation demands them."—[Official Report, 25 November 1974; Vol 882, c. 35–42.]
The "present situation" was the massacre in Birmingham and the alleged fear that the citizens of Birmingham and other cities would wreak vengeance on Irish people in those communities.
It was against that background that the Home Secretary and the then Government were able to put this legislation through the House in late November 1974 and convince new Members of the House, such as myself, not to oppose it. The right hon. Member for Hillhead takes liberties with the English language when he claims to have said on 28 November that he foresaw that the legislation would continue not for a few years but for nearly nine years.
I agree 100 per cent. with what my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said. He is right in saying that no votes are to be gained by opposing this legislation. The official Opposition are opposing the legislation because it is right in principle to do so. I agree with and underline his sentiments that the legislation has caused a great deal of distress to Irish people both in Northern Ireland and in the remainder of Great Britain.
The House heard a typical speech from the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Pitt) when he claimed to be the least enthusiastic Member in the House for the legislation. Having given the reasons for not supporting the legislation, he then said that he would troop through the Lobby in support of the Government. That is typical of the way in which the Liberal/SDP alliance makes its decisions.
Every hon. Member in the debate has been at pains to ensure that no comfort is given to the men of violence. I wish to underline that. No one should underestimate the official Opposition's determination to combat terrorism from wherever it springs, whether it be from Northern Ireland or other parts of the world. However, in a democracy, hon. Members have a duty and a right to question whether a piece of draconian legislation such as the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 deeply offends our cherished tradition of civil liberties and whether legislation of this kind is still necessary.
I do not hide from the House the fact that I dislike the Act. Despite the Jellicoe report, I am still not convinced that it makes a positive contribution to the campaign against terrorism and violence. That view is shared by the vast majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Only in the most exceptional circumstances, similar to the slaughter in Birmingham in 1974, would I even begin to consider that a continuation of the Act was justified. Despite Lord Jellicoe's view that Britain faces an increasing threat from international terrorism, which I accept, I do not believe that the situation is so exceptional as to justify a continuation of the Act.
Many of us remember the atmosphere in the House in November 1974 in the aftermath of the Birmingham bombings. That atmosphere and, in particular, the strong anti-Irish feeling in Birmingham were used as justification for the introduction of the Act. Those of us who supported it did so in the belief that it would be temporary, but nine years later the temporary is becoming permanent.
If the Home Secretary decides to implement, as he appears to suggest that he would, the Jellicoe recommendation that the Act should lapse and have to be renewed every five years, we shall see the start of permanent legislation on the lines of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

Mr. Fitt: Before my hon. Friend is bombarded by interventions from Conservative Members—I can see them coming, and I do not want to give the Home Secretary the chance to say what I am about to say—will he bear in mind that, although we talk about the atmosphere created by the 1974 bombings, there have been many similar atrocities in Northern Ireland since then, including the bombings at Warrenpoint and Ballykelly?
Once we get into the numbers game, we can go on almost endlessly. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although 1974 saw the start of the legislation, the murders and atrocities have continued and we must not restrict our vision to what has happened in this country and divorce ourselves from what is happening in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Marshall: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend.
The 1976 Act was put on the statute book seven years ago and the Government ought to implement the Jellicoe recommendation far sooner than I believe they intend, and allow the legislation to lapse, so that we may have a full parliamentary review, during which the Government would be obliged to bring forward new legislation and defend it in the House. That would be a better course than relying on periodic reviews such as that by the Shackleton committee in 1978 and Lord Jellicoe last year, particularly since neither report questioned the Acts were still necessary.
The Home Secretary established last year's review when it became clear to him that the all-party consensus on the legislation was in danger of breaking down. Perhaps unfortunately for the right hon. Gentleman, the Jellicoe report has not prevented the breakdown of the consensus, but it has provided an opportunity to discuss the Act, which is in stark contrast to previous years when the renewal order has been discussed late at night, with few hon. Members present in the Chamber and most of those not being able to take part in the debate.
At the beginning of the report Lord Jellicoe says that he agrees with the need for special legislation to combat terrorism. It is rather fortunate that he reached that conclusion, since the need is explicit in his terms of reference. Even though he accepts the need, he makes the point that he regards a counter-balancing principle to be of equal importance. That principle is outlined in paragraph 9 of the report.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall put forward the four main points of that counter-balancing principle. First, the law should continue to remain on the statute book only if it is effective; secondly, if its aims cannot be achieved by the use of the general law; thirdly, if it does not make unacceptable inroads into our civil liberties; and, fourthly, if there are effective safeguards against abuse. The report does its best to suggest a number of safeguards against abuse. The Home Secretary mentioned them earlier in the debate. The report recommends that exclusion orders should have a fixed life of three years and that the process should then be repeated if it is the Home Secretary's view that the exclusion order should continue. It recommends that the draconian period of 20 years should be reduced to three years.
Another main recommendation is that applications by the police for extended detention should, wherever possible, specify the period and that in most cases this should be less than permitted by the legislation. Another main recommendation is about the suspect's right of access to a solicitor after 48 hours detention, which already applies under the emergency legislation in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that these safeguards improve the legislation al: the margin, but the remaining three quarters of the noble Lord's equally important principle remain, at the end of 96 pages, unaddressed.
No one has ever made any serious attempt to deny that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act gravely erodes our civil liberties. Two of its most worrying aspects are the power of the police to detain suspects, without charge for 48 hours, and then for a further five days with the consent of the Secretary of State. Perhaps, the least acceptable part of the legislation is the power to exclude people arrested under the Act from Great Britain—in other words, to exile them from Northern Ireland.
Two aspects of that state of affairs have always caused me grave concern. First, some people are too dangerous to walk the streets of Great Britain, but are at liberty to wander around the streets of Northern Ireland where, presumably, they have ample opportunity to indulge in terrorist activities. Secondly, we rightly condemn those totalitarian regimes that practise internal exile. I believe that Britain's condemnatory voice on those regimes is weakened because of our form of internal exile.
Quite apart from the anxiety about the way in which the Act is applied, there is the added danger that long-term acceptance of its provisions will corrupt our democratic


system. I believe that there is evidence that this has begun to happen. The power to detain suspects for seven days, which produced a shock on both sides of the House in 1974, now hardly causes an eyelid to flutter. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which is passing through the House, the police will have power to detain suspects—I admit with safeguards—for 96 hours. That is a trade-off between the acceptability of the seven days in the Prevention of Terrorism Act and increasing the length of detention in the Bill now passing through the House.
One of the most alarming aspects of the Jellicoe report is its frequent reference to the Police Act 1976 as though that is the standard of normality to which the Prevention of Terrorism Act should aspire. This is an example of an insidious circular process in which draconian laws soften us up for similar laws which become the desired standard for further measures.
The erosion of our civil liberties might be justified if there were a greater benefit to society as a whole. We are driven to ask whether the Act prevents terrorism more effectively than normal police powers. The report provides no satisfactory answer to this central and crucial question. Indeed, it states that there can be no clear proof that the arrest powers in the Prevention of Terrorism Act are or are not an essential weapon in the fight against terrorism. Lord Jellicoe can only adduce theories and some rather questionable statistics to support his view. He says that terrorists are skilled in resisting interrogation and so extended detention is necessary. No doubt that is correct, but does it justify casting out the right not to be held unless a charge is brought? Does it justify removing the right to see a solicitor? I believe that we cannot justify removing those two parts of our ancient civil liberties.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) that valuable information is obtained by the police as a result of these admittedly harsh measures?

Mr. Marshall: I shall be addressing myself to that issue. I ask the hon. Gentleman to contain himself for a few minutes.
I believe that we are witnessing the unravelling of the very fabric of our democratic system which we are supposed to be defending against terrorists. The statistics in the report hardly support the argument that the Act should continue. We are told that between 1979 and December 1982 the number of those detained inland and then charged decreased from 32 to 15 per cent., while at the ports there was an increase from 2 to 5 per cent. Apart from the port activity, which appears to have become more precise and accurate, inland arrests appear to be more indiscriminate and less justified.
The Act is a singularly ineffective weapon. Of the 5,555 detained since 1974, the vast majority—4,900—were neither charged nor excluded from Britain. We are driven to the conclusion—I take up the question put to me by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison)—that the authorities are using the Act as an intelligence-gathering weapon. No doubt it has some value in that sense. By constant cross-examination it is possible to discover the contacts of those who have been arrested, where they met and when they last saw them. In that way it is possible to build up a picture of the movement in

certain areas in the United Kingdom. In that way the Act could be said to be useful, but I think we must accept that that leads to grave disadvantages.
The Act increases the number of sympathisers for the terrorist organisations, especially when people are picked up, held, cross-examined for a long time and ultimately released with no charge having been brought. The suspect is then able to present himself as innocent, despite the allegation made by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) that many of the 4,900 were guilty even though no charges were brought against them. However, these people are able to present themselves as innocent and this creates the impression among the Irish community in Great Britain that people are dragged in under the Act's provisions even though they are innocent and no charges are brought. Such people can convince the community that they have been wronged. I believe that that increases the degree of sympathy felt for terrorist organisations among sections of the community.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. It increases those fears. However, if, as a result of interrogation, with safeguards, clues, tips and inferences are reached that enable the police to prevent a bombing that might kill some of the hon. Member's constituents, how does he put that into the balance?

Mr. Marshall: On balance, the Prevention of Terrorism Act does not contribute positively to the containment of terrorism. If the hon. Gentleman studies the tables in the report, he will see that since 1975, out of the 5,555 people picked up in Great Britain, only 28 have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment greater than one year. The Act undermines the confidence of the minority community in Great Britain and its willingness to cooperate. For that reason, it undermines the police when they seek to combat terrorism, particularly when they require information from the Irish community in Great Britain.
The most worrying part of the report is its failure to say that exclusion orders should not be permitted to remain on the statute book. Lord Jellicoe describes them as an unsatisfactory substitute for criminal proceedings and yet claims that they have rid Great Britain of dangerous terrorists, but, presumably, not Northern Ireland, to where many have been excluded.
At a press conference on 9 February Lord Jellicoe said that no criminal charges should be brought against those dangerous terrorists because it would be impolitic to reveal in a court the more sensitive evidence against terrorists. I guess that it is more likely that there is insufficient evidence for a court. Are we prepared to accept that there are crimes which cannot be tried in a court but which must be decided in secret by policemen and politicians? I do not question the Home Secretary's integrity in these matters, but in a democracy we should not be prepared to accept that people can be tried in secret by policemen and politicians. It is a policy which all democrats should deplore.
The report has failed singularly to satisfy the counterbalancing argument that Lord Jellicoe set up. It fails to show that the Act continues to be effective. It does not show that the Act's aims cannot be obtained under the general law. It shows clearly that the Act makes unacceptable inroads into our civil liberties. It is for that


reason, among others, that we shall vote against the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): It is right that the House should pause before passing legislation resulting in inroads in our civil liberties. However, sometimes liberties and individual rights must be curtailed to protect far more fundamental rights—the right, for instance, of ordinary people to stay alive and go about their business without fear, as mentioned in the Shackleton report.
Disgusting crimes have been committed by contemptible and loathsome people who have chosen to use the weapon of terror against entirely innocent fellow men and women. Other countries with a less strong tradition of freedom might have reacted by passing very much more drastic legislation. We are proposing the renewal of measures that I believe strike a reasonable balance between the need to protect individual liberties on the one hand and to safeguard the public on the other. I would go further. I believe that if these powers were not renewed, there would be a feeling of great outrage among the public.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) argued that that was the true reason why he supported the Act in 1974. If he found it right to vote for the Act at that time, because he recognised the outrage that would have been felt by the public had there not been legislation, I find it hard to understand why he is apparently content not to support the Act tonight after the outrages in London as recently as last year.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there was no vote in November 1974?

Mr. Waddington: That is an extraordinary argument. The hon. Gentleman referred to his having supported the measure as a new Member in 1974.
For a start, non-renewal would mean that obscene organisations such as the IRA would be able once again to flaunt themselves in public, to have meetings openly, and to go around collecting funds for the purchase of more explosives to blow off more people's legs. After what happened in London last year and after Ballykelly, is that really something that the British people would be prepared to accept? Quite clearly not.
Non-renewal would also mean the dismantling of all port controls for passengers travelling between the Republic and Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Who has most to gain from that? It is true that the travelling public would avoid a little inconvenience, but I was amazed by the intervention of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), who talked about the horrors of these restrictions that made people miss their train and aeroplane connections. The real beneficiaries of dismantling the port controls would be the terrorists, for whom the presence of police officers at the ports must be a significant deterrent, which inhibits their movements as well as the movement of weapons or explosives. We cannot measure in terms of saved lives the deterrent effect of legislation of this sort, but we can ask ourselves how on earth letting the Act lapse could help.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that before the legislation was introduced in 1974 there were policemen regularly at the

ports and that on occasions they stopped people and asked them questions? Will he further confirm that most people are annoyed because it appears that those who are stopped for long periods are stopped for political reasons rather than because they appear to be terrorists?

Mr. Waddington: I doubt whether many people are so foolish and wicked as to complain about some moderate inconvenience when that probably results in the saving of lives. Of course there were policemen at the ports prior to 1974, but they did not have the powers that they have now.
Non-renewal would mean the dismantling of those port controls. It would also mean the undoing of the work of successive Home Secretaries who have used the Act to remove those who have been involved in acts of terrorism and might commit them here. In the words of the Jellicoe report, there have undoubtedly been cases where exclusion has rid Great Britain of dangerous terrorists, and this would not have been achieved through the normal crime process. According to the report,
the exclusion of some people … has materially contributed to public safety".
Therefore, if the Opposition were to have their way, public safety would be materially prejudiced. Non-renewal would mean the end of extended detention with the result, according to the report, that the police would be severely handicapped in dealing with terrorists.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) told us of his opinions. It was perhaps worthy of note that only three hon. Members from the Labour party turned up in the Chamber to support him, and the last three speeches before the wind-ups all came from the Government side of the House. Hon. Members will make what they can of that.
Some of the comments of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook were amazing. He said that the continuation of powers of this nature must be contingent on absolute proof that they are necessary. But how can one prove that the existence of these powers or any powers or the making of any particular act illegal has saved 19 lives, 21., 46 or 57? Any fool can understand that.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was not demanding absolute proof between 1975 and this year. Was he then kicking at the pricks and saying that he could not accept legislation unless he had absolute proof? What absolute proof did he have between 1974 and last year that is absent today? He said that for nine years there had been growing revulsion against detention under the Act. There were nine years during which the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to endure with equanimity his growing revulsion, if there was that growing revulsion, which neither I nor the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hill head (Mr. Jenkins) ever detected. There has been much extravagant language used today that cannot be justified by the nature of the provisions that we are examining.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook used as evidence that the Act was unnecessary the fact that only 15 people detained inland were charged. I would say that that shows the discretion with which the Act has been used. The right hon. Gentleman said that all this was part and parcel of a movement towards a more authoritarian society. At that moment in his speech he began to blurt out all the jargon of those across the river to which I and most hon. Members did not think he subscribed until a short time ago. It was pretty rich for the right hon. Gentleman to describe the powers in that way when they were powers


originally taken by a Labour Government, then perpetuated by a Labour Government and voted for by the right hon. Gentleman year after year.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Hillhead for his contribution. He mentioned some most important points. He said that when he introduced the 1974 Act he believed that proscription of the IRA would avoid provocation to the public. That is what I had in mind in my opening remarks. Provocation would be caused if we were not to renew the powers today. He pointed out what an extraordinary year it was for the Labour party to change course when 1982 was the worst year for terrorist outbreaks since 1975. He was right as far as Great Britain was concerned to express that surprise, but for the record I point out that in Northern Ireland there was a decline in violence in 1982 as compared with 1981. However, that does not spoil the right hon. Gentleman's argument.
The right hon. Member for Hillhead said that perhaps a new Act should be renewable year by year in part. In other words, having passed an Act that would lapse after five years perhaps it would be possible each year to renew it in part. I can only say that this matter will be considered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) reminded the House of the appalling story of international terrorism. My hon. Friend hoped that the Home Secretary would not draw an artificial distinction between international terrorism and domestic terrorism. Much the same was stated by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The suggestion of an extension of the Act to international terrorism is under consideration. We have listened to the debate and to the various contributions made on this point. We shall also bear in mind the suggestion that all domestic terrorism should be covered. I should, however, emphasise that Lord Jellicoe, in his report, stressed that powers should be available only when they can achieve a beneficial effect. He pointed out that the problem of domestic terrorism unconnected with Northern Ireland is not a problem comparable in extent to the problem of Irish terrorism.
The right hon. Member for Down, South said that he welcomed the shorter period than 20 years, which would prevent the use of the power of exclusion. That recommendation will be examined. Again, on the question of exclusion, the right hon. Gentleman said that he welcomed the recommendation in the report that the police on both sides, that is, on the excluding and on the receiving end, would be consulted and advice taken from them before an exclusion order was made. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that recommendation is not only acceptable to the Government; it has been accepted and implemented.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser) said that it was incomprehensible that the Opposition this year should have changed their whole attitude. My right hon. Friend said that he supported the recommendation made in the report that there should be financial assistance for legal advice for those detained for more than 48 hours. I can tell the House that we also accept that recommendation.
The right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) said that the majority of people affected by the legislation are shown, in the event, to be innocent and are released. I am afraid that I cannot accept those words. The purpose of the powers is to deal with those cases where there are

difficulties of proof but also cases where the evidence available is so sensitive that it cannot be used. It is so sensitive that if such information were given to the person involved who was thereby given a clue as to the source of the information, the life of the person who had given that information to the authorities would be at risk. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the terrorists want these laws. I cannot accept that for one moment. If I were minded to arrive at Stranraer with explosives, I would not want these laws on the statute book. That is for certain. How can one assess the effect of port powers when one is talking about deterrence?
My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) stressed the importance of safeguarding individual liberties. With that, I most certainly agree. My hon. Friend suggested that there should be checks as often as possible before people leave their country rather than before they arrive elsewhere. There is nothing in the Act to prevent this. There is, however, a practical difficulty. The police may have good reason not to alert a person to their suspicions about him until he has actually travelled with perhaps the evidence on him as to his intentions. My hon. Friend said that it was important that the Bill should not appear to suggest that this is not a United Kingdom. My hon. Friend is entirely right. We take that point.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), as usual, made an eloquent speech. He said, quite unnecessarily, that in opposing the renewal of the Act he was not saying that he had a sneaking sympathy with the terrorists. We knew that, because we know his courage. He referred to Adams, Morrison and McGuinness, the gentlemen who wished to come here in response to an invitation from across the river. I can only tell the House that the decisions in that case were taken solely in the interests of the prevention of terrorism. The exclusion orders were made on the same principles and in exactly the same way as all other decisions on exclusions made under the 1976 Act.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) referred to the disintegration of the Labour party, evidenced by what has occurred today. I can only say that that must be obvious to many people.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Pitt) made an interesting speech. He said at one stage that social conditions inspired terrorism. That is a difficult proposition to sustain. I remind the hon. Gentleman that when Ulster had a standard of living far higher than that in the south there was still terrorism in Ulster. One has to be careful in making such statements that one does not give the impression to the ill-informed that one might be justified in blowing up people's property or in killing people because of dissatisfaction with one's social conditions. One should be wary of making such statements.

Mr. Pitt: Does the Minister agree that, before this spate of terrorism, the lot of many people in Deny was bad because of the gerrymandered electoral system and their bad social conditions, and that that was one of the contributory factors?

Mr. Waddington: I do not accept for a moment that these terrorists, some of whom are making money out of protection rackets, some of whom are Marxists, and others, because of some other ambition, are persuaded of the need to blow up their fellow men because they do not have a nice enough house in Derry.
The hon. Gentleman said that exclusion orders were made unreasonably. The fact that 15 exclusion orders were made in Great Britain last year is hardly powerful evidence that they have been thrown about the place and are being used with other than great discretion. The hon. Gentleman said that exclusion orders should be made in the courts so that evidence can be heard and so that the person against whom the exclusion order is aimed may have opportunity to make representations. The hon. Gentleman has missed the whole point. As I said a few minutes ago, exclusion orders are made in cases where the facts are too sensitive for that to be done. They are far too sensitive for the person who is about to be excluded to be told the information against him and where it came from, because the likely result would be that the informer would soon be dead at the hands of the same terrorists.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) referred to the film that we understand is to be shown—or may already have been shown—on television tonight. He suggested that if payment is being made to the IRA for anything that appears on the programme, there might be an infringement of section 11 of the Act. I shall pass his views to my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) said that there was no evidence that the Act had helped to deter terrorist activity. I can only repeat what I said earlier: how can one prove that a crime would not have occurred? All one can do is to address one's common sense to problems of this nature and come to a reasonable conclusion.
The hon. Gentleman said that few of those arrested were charged, so that the Act did not work. The proportion of those detained who are subsequently charged or excluded has in recent years been substantially higher than in earlier years, which would tend to show that the Act is being used with more discrimination and more sensitivity.

Mr. McNamara: Will the Minister distinguish between the United Kingdom figures and the figures for the Six Counties?

Mr. Waddington: There is no doubt that the Act is used far more extensively in Northern Ireland, but there is also no doubt that the threat is far greater in Northern Ireland and the degree of violence there is very much higher.
The hon. Gentleman said that we were taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. That was not the first time during the debate that the word "nut" came to my mind, but perhaps I had better not dwell on that.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said that the real questions to ask were these. Would repeal of the Act make it easier for terrorists? He answered yes and we answer yes. He asked: would it encourage the terrorist if the Act disappeared from the statute book? He answered yes and we answer yes. He said that the police say that they need the powers in the Act. I agree with him. Lord Jellicoe came to the conclusion that the police needed the powers in the Act.
My hon. and learned Friend asked what was being done about weapons being brought into this country in diplomatic bags. If that is a problem, it is an inherently difficult one to solve. I cannot confirm or deny allegations concerning the shooting of Mr. Argov, but I can assure the House that, if there were any evidence of criminal

involvement by a diplomat, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would not hesitate to take the appropriate action.

Mr. Lawrence: Will my hon. and learned Friend note that that is the sort of answer that has been given time and again when the question has been raised in the House? [asked the question because I hoped that the Government would actually do something about the screening of diplomatic bags, or put pressure through diplomatic orders or conventions to try to make that opportunity available.

Mr. Waddington: My hon. and learned Friend may have asked the question many times but, first, he has never asked me about it, and, secondly, I do not think that would be the right person to whom he should address the question in any event, because it is clearly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
The hon. Member for Stockport, North said that Lord Jellicoe had to accept the continuing need for the legislation because it was a part of his terms of reference. That is undoubtedly true, but I remind the House that Lord Shackleton's terms of reference were exactly the same.
I was asked why the immigration rules are not adequate to deal with this problem. For travel between Ireland and. Britain, the usual immigration powers are, in the main, not exercised, because Ireland and Britain form part of a. common travel area.
I was asked about the treatment of people in police custody, and access for lawyers. I can assure the House that the recommendation made by Lord Jellicoe is accepted by the Government.
I was also asked what will happen to those now excluded who would not have been excluded under the new three-year rule proposed by Lord Jellicoe. I can only say that that problem will be borne in mind in the framing of the Bill. I cannot be expected to give the House a definitive answer at this stage.
I was asked about the possibility of an amnesty for those who are holding firearms illegally. I find it difficult to see the relevance of that to terrorism. I cannot believe that, by and large, terrorists are obtaining arms from people who have secreted them in the bottom drawers of their dressing tables and who would be attracted by an amnesty coupled with some small financial reward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) said that it was undesirable to use this legislation in relation to international terrorism. I made it clear that we shall consider that matter very carefully. It attracted a great deal of attention during the debate. The argument was put from both sides of the House and will be borne in mind by my right hon. Friend.
I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) whether we would give immigration officers more training and advice in the use of the powers in the Act. The recommendation about training in the report is being carefully studied, and we shall make our views known in due course. My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Sir P. Mills) said that without these powers there would be unease among the public and a feeling that the Government were not doing all that they could. I entirely agree with him. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) reminded us of where he was at the time of the Birmingham bombings in 1974, and what a terrible event that was.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South said that he had supported the legislation in 1974, but he did not explain why people do not demand a response to the continuing terrorism of today if they demanded such a response in 1974. He said that only the bombings in Birmingham had persuaded him to vote for the legislation then and that only another such bombing would persuade him to vote for a renewal of it now. I can only express my complete amazement at his attitude, in view of the terrorist activities in London last year. The hon. Gentleman said that if we have an Act that will lapse after five years that will be the beginning of permanent legislation. That is an Irishism all right. Every five years hon. Members will have the opportunity to examine the legislation in detail and to decide which parts of it, if any, they want to retain. The hon. Gentleman said that the Act should be allowed to lapse so that the Government would be obliged to bring in another Bill. That is precisely what we are doing.
There is no doubt that the police want these powers, which have helped them significantly in their fight against terrorism. The police deserve not merely our good wishes for their work—although there are some not far from here who, to their shame, wish them nothing but ill—but the practical support which the powers in the Act give them. While the threat remains at the present level, it would be folly to allow the Act to lapse. Nothing has happened in the past two years to lessen the need for the legislation. Over the years, however, the Labour party has changed—and changed dramatically for the worse. When the then Home Secretary introduced the 1974 Bill he remarked that the struggle to eradicate terrorism might not be a short one. He has been proved horribly right. He did not forecast then the decay of the Labour party that has now occurred and manifests itself most clearly on occasions such as this when that party turns its back on all that it so rightly did when it had the responsibilities of Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Review of the Operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 by The Right Honourable Earl Jellicoe, DSO, MC (Cmnd. 8803).

PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM

Motion made and Question proposed,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 217, Noes 129.

Division No. 84]
[10 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Benyon, Thomas (A'don)


Alexander, Richard
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Berry, Hon Anthony


Ancram, Michael
Bevan, David Gilroy


Arnold, Tom
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Aspinwall, Jack
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Blackburn, John


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)


Banks, Robert
Bowden, Andrew


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Bradley, Tom





Braine, Sir Bernard
Luce, Richard


Brinton, Tim
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
McCrindle, Robert


Brooke, Hon Peter
McCusker, H.


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Macfarlane, Neil


Browne, John (Winchester)
MacGregor, John


Bruce-Gardyne, John
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Maclennan, Robert


Buck, Antony
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Butcher, John
McQuade, John


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
McQuarrie, Albert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Madel, David


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Magee, Bryan


Cartwright, John
Major, John


Chapman, Sydney
Marlow, Antony


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Clegg, Sir Walter
Mates, Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Mather, Carol


Cope, John
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Costain, Sir Albert
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Cranborne, Viscount
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Critchley, Julian
Mayhew, Patrick


Crouch, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Dorrell, Stephen
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Dover, Denshore
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Moate, Roger


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Molyneaux, James


Durant, Tony
Monro, Sir Hector


Dykes, Hugh
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Eggar, Tim
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mudd, David


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Murphy, Christopher


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Myles, David


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Needham, Richard


Fookes, Miss Janet
Nelson, Anthony


Freud, Clement
Newton, Tony


Fry, Peter
Nott, Rt Hon Sir John


Ginsburg, David
Ogden, Eric


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Onslow, Cranley


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Osborn, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Gow, Ian
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Grant, Sir Anthony
Parris, Matthew


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Pawsey, James


Gummer, John Selwyn
Penhaligon, David


Hamilton, Hon A.
Percival, Sir Ian


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pink, R. Bonner


Hampson, Dr Keith
Pitt, William Henry


Hannam, John
Pollock, Alexander


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Hawksley, Warren
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Heddle, John
Proctor, K. Harvey


Henderson, Barry
Rathbone, Tim


Hicks, Robert
Renton, Tim


Hill, James
Rhodes James, Robert


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Horam, John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Hordern, Peter
Rifkind, Malcolm


Howells, Geraint
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Roper, John


Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Rossi, Hugh


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Kimball, Sir Marcus
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sandelson, Neville


Knight, Mrs Jill
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lamont, Norman
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lang, Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lawrence, Ivan
Sims, Roger


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Speed, Keith


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)
Speller, Tony


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Loveridge, John
Squire, Robin






Stanbrook, Ivor
Wakeham, John


Stanley, John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Steen, Anthony
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Stevens, Martin
Wall, Sir Patrick


Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)
Ward, John


Stradling Thomas, J.
Warren, Kenneth


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wheeler, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Whitney, Raymond


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wickenden, Keith


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wilkinson, John


Thompson, Donald
Winterton, Nicholas


Thorne, Neil (llford South)
Wolfson, Mark


Thornton, Malcolm
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Townend, John (Bridlington)



Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Trippier, David
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Douglas Hogg.


Waddington, David



NOES


Allaun, Frank
Dubs, Alfred


Alton, David
Duffy, A. E. P.


Ashton, Joe
Eadie, Alex


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Eastham, Ken


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Evans, John (Newton)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Ewing, Harry


Buchan, Norman
Fitt, Gerard


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Flannery, Martin


Campbell, Ian
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foulkes, George


Canavan, Dennis
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Carmichael, Neil
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
George, Bruce


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Golding, John


Cook, Robin F.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Cryer, Bob
Hardy, Peter


Dalyell, Tarn
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Davidson, Arthur
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Haynes, Frank


Deakins, Eric
Heffer, Eric S.


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Dobson, Frank
Home Robertson, John


Dormand, Jack
Homewood, William


Douglas, Dick
Hooley, Frank





Hoyle, Douglas
Parry, Robert


Huckfield, Les
Pavitt, Laurie


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Prescott, John


Janner, Hon Greville
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Race, Reg


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Richardson, Jo


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Kinnock, Neil
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Lamond, James
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Leighton, Ronald
Rowlands, Ted


Lestor, Miss Joan
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Skinner, Dennis


Litherland, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Snape, Peter


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Soley, Clive


McCartney, Hugh
Spearing, Nigel


McElhone, Mrs Helen
Stallard, A. W.


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Stott, Roger


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


McNamara, Kevin
Tilley, John


McWilliam, John
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Watkins, David


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Welsh, Michael


Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)
White, Frank R.


Maxton, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Maynard, Miss Joan
Whitlock, William


Meacher, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd


Mikardo, Ian
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Winnick, David


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Woodall, Alec


Newens, Stanley



O'Halloran, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


O'Neill, Martin
Mr. George Morton and


Park, George
Dr. Edmund Marshall.

Question accordingly agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the British Fishing Boats Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—Mr. Thompson.]

Orders of the Day — British Fishing Boats Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
When the House debated the common fisheries policy on 31 January I announced the Government's intention to seek legislative powers to deal with a growing problem for the United Kingdom fishing industry. That is the influx of many ex-foreign, mainly Spanish, fishing vessels that have re-registered British to circumvent European Community licensing arrangements. The Bill now before the House is designed to tackle that problem at its roots and I shall explain in some detail the background to its main provisions.
First, I shall outline briefly some of the history of the problem. Since May 1980 about 67 ex-Spanish vessels, or British vessels with a Spanish association, have taken advantage of our liberal registration shipping arrangements that allow them to fly the red ensign so long as they satisfy certain conditions regarding, for example, ownership of the vessel by a British-registered company having its principal place of business in the United Kingdom. Sixty-three of those vessels are still registered. There are rumours of further potential applicants. They have done that because under the terms of the European Community's bilateral fisheries agreement with Spain fishing opportunities for vessels from that country in the waters of member states in the Community were restricted. Licences to fish have been reduced in line with the agreement with the result that in 1982 only 130 licences were issued compared with 240 in 1978. Some of the unsuccessful applicants for licences have acted quickly. They have simply become "British". Their main commercial activity is to fish the British quota for hake. They also catch valuable non-quota species such as angler fish or monk fish, as some of us know it, and west coast sole or megrim. However, hake is their main target and the latest statistics show that in 1982 they took most of the 3,800 tons available quota. It was, of course, traditional British catchers who built up our hake catch record on which the Commission assesses our national quota proportion and, as I am sure all hon. Members will agree, it is completley unacceptable that third country nationals should be allowed to take advantage of our earlier achievements in this way.
There are significant numbers of genuine British catchers around our coast whose livelihood depends on that valuable species, and although it has been represented to me by some of the English managers of the ex-Spanish fleet that without their involvement market outlets would have been unexploited and prices depressed, I find that difficult to accept. The bulk of the ex-Spanish catch goes directly to Spain and the remainder is transported there by lorries directly it is landed in United Kingdom ports.
It has also been represented to me on behalf of the ex-Spanish that they have injected much-needed capital into local fishing ports, particularly in the south-west where their main United Kingdom activity centres, in the form of ice plants and so on. It is difficult to quantify that, but

I believe that the amounts of capital investment involved are insignificant compared with the costs to our industry through the loss of catching opportunities.
Further complaints are levelled at the ex-Spanish by all sides of our industry. Catches landed in the United Kingdom from ex-Spanish vessels are re-exported for sale elsewhere and avoid the levy imposed by the Sea Fish Industry Authority on landings for the United Kingdom market. They benefit, because of their Spanish connection, from import duty relief, and sometimes access, not available to British vessels that wish to land catches in Spain.
Finally, on the evidence of our own British sea fishery officers, it is sometimes impossible to serve summonses for alleged infringements of our fisheries legislation because of our problems and difficulties in tracing the Spanish owner whose United Kingdom address proves to be no more than a brass plate. For all those reasons, there has been a growth of very considerable and understandable hostility from our industry towards the ex-Spanish

Mr. J. Grimond: The Minister has referred so far exclusively to Spanish vessels. I know that they are a great problem, but has his Ministry any evidence that other nations are undertaking that operation?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The main country that is taking advantage is Spain. A few Norwegian vessels have been doing so as well, but they are few compared to the Spaniards.
Against that background, we looked at a number of ways to try and deal with the problem. There have been questions about it in the House for many months. The way in which I hoped to tackle the problem initially was through the various registration rules on fishing vessels. I considered that course in co-operation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, but we concluded that the solution to what we regard as a short-term problem would not lend itself to this approach because of the need for consistency with our long-term approach to international shipping.
We are a trading nation and it is in our wider international shipping interests to maintain an open register and a liberal approach. This means that we cannot pick and choose whom we discourage from registering their vessels in the United Kingdom. Therefore, this approach did not lend itself to dealing swiftly with the urgent problem before us.
This is a fairly short Bill—11 clauses in all, the majority of which relate to enforcement. Clause 1 is intended to authorise fisheries Ministers to impose by order conditions relating to the nationality of the crews of British fishing boats wishing to be qualified to fish for, or trans-ship, sea fish in waters that will also be specified in the subsequent order. The landing in the United Kingdom of sea fish, wherever caught, by British boats not qualified under these conditions will be also be prohibited. Conditions relating to the stowage of gear by boats not satisfying the crewing qualifications would also be imposed by order. The penalties for any contravention of those provisions by a master, owner or charterer of a boat would be a fine on summary conviction not exceeding £50,000 and, on indictment, and unlimited amount. Courts would also be able to order the forfeiture of any fish or fishing gear.

Mr. John Prescott: By referring to the nationality of the crews, obviously the Minister wishes to discriminate against non-British crews. Does he extend that to EC nationals?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall cover that point in a moment. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) may wish to return to it in the debate.
Let me explain the thinking behind the clause. We are seeking to close the loophole by which third country nationals can exploit Community, and particularly United Kingdom, fishing opportunities. We intend doing this by ensuring that these opportunities are in future available to nationals of the Community. That answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
Ministers therefore intend to specify in the subsequent order a crewing qualification of at least 75 per cent. Community nationals for boats fishing in British waters. We considered extending the area subject to this restriction to the waters of member states of the Community but, after consideration, we have come to the conclusion that, apart from the practical difficulties of enforcing such a power beyond British fishery limits, we believe that it would be more appropriate for the European Commission or other member states to come forward with legislation which would be directly applicable in other Community waters. The 75 per cent. rule which the House will wish to have explained is based on precedents well-established in Community preferential arrangements. Indeed, it is enshrined in the agreements between the Community and Spain and the Community and Norway. It can be found for example in note 4 of the explanatory notes to the protocol to the agreement between the Community and Spain of 20 July 1970, set out in Council regulation (EEC) No. 1524/70, a copy of which is available to the House. There is a precedent for this rule and qualification being used. That is the reason why the Government have taken it.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister accept, in view of clause 1(4), that in the event of Spain joining the EC, which the Government are pressing for, these restrictions will be automatically and immediately removed?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We shall then be in a completely different position. This is known in the Community as "quota-hopping", where one country seeks to take advantage of the various opportunities that exist for another country's quota. If Spain joins the Community, it would be able to do that in the same way as any other country can presently do so.
The issue has not arisen, because we agreed quotas only on 25 January. Countries are well aware of the situation. About a year ago, a number of Danish vessels were fishing out of Dutch ports. The Council of Ministers and the Commission are well aware of the matter and if problems arise we shall have to deal with them on a Community basis. I should expect us to be able to deal in that way with any problems arising from Spain's accession to the Community.
At present, we are dealing with an urgent situation in the south-west of England. It concerns a country that is not a member of the Community. That is the immediate problem.

Sir Patrick Wall: Has Spain any historic rights in our waters?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes. Spain has fished in our waters and has a number of licences that she can use. I explained earlier that we have sought to decrease the number of such licences.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I missed the Minister's opening words, and I apologise if he has already answered this question. As he is talking about an urgent problem, when does he expect to bring in the orders to deal with that problem?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I had intended to deal with that matter later, but in response to the hon. Gentleman's question I shall deal with it now. Assuming that we get Royal Assent for the Bill before Easter, and subject to proceedings in this House and another place, we hope to introduce an order early in April. If the Bill is passed quickly, we should be able to act on that time scale. I hope that that information is helpful to the House.
I return to clause 1 and the provisions on fishing, transshipping, landing and stowage. We have included all those activities because we believe that unless they are covered they could allow the purposes of the Bill to be breached. Our catching industry has expressed anxiety about all those activities.
The penalties that we have prescribed are consistent with those at present applicable to genuine British vessels operating under existing fisheries legislation. There is no discrimination there.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Before my right hon. Friend leaves that important point, will he add to the list of those to whose representations the Government have rightly paid attention the Select Committee on Agriculture, which reported on the British fishery industry, foresaw the abuse and recommended curative action?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Select Committee, of which my hon. Friend is a distinguished member, foresaw not only the abuse but a number of other things, of which my hon. Friend rightly reminds me from time to time.
Clause 1 is the substance of the Bill. The others relate mainly to enforcement. Clauses 2, 3 and 4 make provisions relating to the powers needed by British sea fishery officers to enforce the Bill and specify the penalties for obstructing those officers in the carrying out of their duties. Again I emphasise that the powers envisaged have well-established precedents in existing fisheries legislation. The penalty for obstruction would be a fine of £5,000, again the same as in existing fisheries legislation.
Clause 5 provides for the recovery of fines. It will be possible to levy distress against the vessel involved and to enable it to be detained until the fine is recovered.
Clause 6 deals with the liability of the officers of a body corporate which has committed an offence.
Clause 7 provides that proceedings under the Act may be taken, and the offence may for all purposes be treated as having been committed anywhere in the United Kingdom.
Clause 8 provides for administrative expenses to be met out of moneys provided by Parliament. We expect costs to be very small because there will be no additional effort by the fishery protection service to bring offenders to book. The ex-foreign vessels will be monitored and dealt with in the course of the normal duties of our sea fisheries officers, so costs will arise only if cases come to court and


the small sums involved will be absorbed within the court's normal running costs. A money resolution will be put to the House shortly.
Clause 9 contains the various definitions which, I believe, are self-explanatory.
Clause 10 is quite normal in fisheries legislation and provides for the extension of these new powers by Order in Council to the Isle of Man or Channel Islands. The islands' authorities have indicated their firm support for the principle underlying these proposals.
Finally, clause 11 cites the short title which is, I think, appropriate because we are concerned here with the overall well-being of the British fishing boats, their owners and crews, and also contains a small consequential amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 so that the meaning of the ownership of a vessel is consistent with that in existing legislation.
The Bill is important and, anticipating the enthusiasm of the House to see the Bill passed swiftly on to the statute book, I have dealt fairly quickly with its provisions, although I hope in a way which adequately explains them. I hope that the Bill receives the support of the House. It has had the support of our fishing industry and, in that spirit, I commend it to the House.

Mr. Norman Buchan: When we first discussed the Bill, I promised that we would give it a fair wind and would support the concept unless particular difficulties arose. It is certainly the wish of the fishermen, particularly in the south-west, that this should happen and it is our wish that the loophole exploited through flags of convenience should be blocked.
We were under no illusion about some of the difficulties involved. They became manifest in the Minister's speech. The great hole that remains is the problem of dealing with the Common Market nationals. The points and the interruptions that were made during the Minister's speech make it clear that we have not solved the problems and that when Spain enters the EC, we shall have to cope with the problems again. We accept the Bill but underline that that difficulty still remains.
I wish to make only one or two points at this stage because amendments have been selected that should be discussed. I should like to draw attention to the speed with which the Government have been able to act on a difficulty of this type, which poses questions of freedom, nationality and international obligation. Now we are told that we can get the whole lot done by April. I must contrast that with their speed of action on other problems that face our fishermen, which have been highlighted in some of the amendments. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to discuss them. Rumour says that we shall not, but we shall see. I see no real reason why we cannot have other qualifications, along with the qualification of nationality, written into the Bill.
The Bill teaches us yet another lesson. The argument that has been put forward by those who have been taking part in this trade, the brass plate people—those operating the flags of convenience—about shore jobs as well as crew jobs underlines again part of the Government's failure in imaginative stimulation and assistance to enable people to take up not a large-scale fishery but an expensive and

lucrative fishery with, perhaps, the development of shore-based processing and marketing concepts. Even that will not deal with the problems of quota hopping. What is the likelihood of the Commission taking steps to deal with the problems?

Mr. Robert Hughes: None at all.

Mr. Buchan: Although my hon. Friend is pessimistic, I hope that we shall be given some assurances at the end of the day. The phrase "quota hopping" suggests that the issue is very much in the mind of the Commission. If that is so, or if it had been discussed at the Council of Ministers, measures to deal with the problems could have been introduced into the Bill. The Government are caught in a dilemma of their own making because of their enthusiasm for the Market. Their anxiety is not to quarrel with certain aspects of the Market because they do not wish to be considered as non-Communautaire. This will lead to a major difficulty for the Government and the more strongly we emphasise that in the House the stronger, perhaps, will be the approach of Ministers when they have to deal with the problem at the Council of Ministers.
I was extremely surprised by the amendment of the Secretary of State for Scotland. We are not always surprised by his actions, but I just do not understand why he has tabled the amendment. This is not a particular problem for Scotland. Are the Government expecting the problem to be facing Scotland in relation to another third-country nationals? I shall be taking the strongest objection to the amendment.
I wish to give the Bill a fair but slightly sceptical wind.

Sir Patrick Wall: The Bill has the support of the Opposition and is desired by the fishing industry. That being so, I shall keep my remarks short. First, the Bill refers to areas specified by order. Which waters does my right hon. Friend the Minister have in mind—the exclusive British six miles, the 12 miles, the 50 miles or 200 miles?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As I said earlier, we have in mind the British fishery limits.

Sir Patrick Wall: The 12 miles or the six miles?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The 200 miles.

Sir Patrick Wall: My right hon. Friend has observed that a levy is paid on British fish if they are landed in Spain. The flags of convenience vessels can send their fish by lorries to Spain and pay no levy either in Spain or in Britain. Is Spain potentially a large market for British fish and is there any truth in the report in the press that if the Bill is enacted trade at Falmouth, which was mentioned especially, will suffer by about £1 million and cause about 150 to 200 jobs to be lost. As my right hon. Friend said, on balance the whole of the industry is more important than only one part of the industry. However, I should like to see that issue cleared up.
Is the Spanish fishing fleet the largest in the EC? Is it true that a condition of its entry into the EC is that it will reduce its middle-water fleet to 100 vessels? Is it also true that it already has an agreement with France, which will be the EC state most affected by the Spanish fishing fleet?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: What does my hon. Friend mean by "jobs"? Is he referring to those dissolute people who are paid 3 per cent. of the catch to do nothing except


allow their names to be used to register the boat? Does he call them "jobs" or corrupt people who have sold their country out?

Sir Patrick Wall: My hon. Friend, whose constituency lies in the south-west, knows more about this subject than I do. I was repeating an article that appeared in The Times. I should like to hear the facts confirmed or denied.
The subject of what happens when Spain joins the EC has been raised already. Spain will presumably have a quota. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, Spain has historic rights. Will the quota come from the whole of the EC or mainly from our quota? Although it is hypothetical at the moment, it worries many of us. Spain has already applied to join the EC. Its application will be approved in due course and the House wants to know what the Minister has in mind about these matters.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I rise to support the Bill's objectives without qualification, consistent with my earlier views on the matter. The Official Opposition seem to be widening the debate's ambit considerably beyond the earlier representations on the importance of tackling the Spanish problem.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) seems to be taking the opportunity to raise a number of other unrelated matters which will no doubt have to be dealt with by communautaire measures if and when Spain joins the EC.
Why has the Minister decided to proceed by means of primary legislation enabling him to take powers by statutory instrument which will be subject to negative procedures only? He has described part of the substantive provisions of the order, but the House would like the opportunity to consider in detail, and possibly amend, the precise definitions which may be embodied in the order.
I acknowledge fully the desirability of proceeding at speed, but I believe that it is a mistake to conceal from the House the substantive provisions of the order which give effect to the Minister's intentions. "Conceal" is perhaps not precisely the right word, because the Minister revealed a number of matters, some as a result of pressure from the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Sir P. Wall).

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has withdrawn what he said about concealment. There has been no attempt to conceal anything. Whether there are negative or affirmative orders before the House, any vigilant and active Member can take the opportunity to pray against them and have them debated.

Mr. Maclennan: The Minister is as experienced in the House as I am, and he well knows how limited is the opportunity to pray against an order and invoke the negative procedure. Furthermore, it does not permit amendment, which is a serious criticism of this procedure. The primary legislation should have encompassed the precise measures that the Minister has in mind. It would have been helpful if the Bill had spelt out the fact that it covers British fishing limits up to 200 miles and whether it included the 75 per cent. rule. Those matters could then have been tested against EC thinking. I should like to have had the response of the European Commission. However, I do not wish to labour this point. In principle, it is undesirable for Ministers to take powers of this kind—which are rather drastic—by such indirect means.
My second, minor point can probably be easily answered. I notice that clause 1(4) refers to
nationals of any other member State".
That presumably means a member state of the Community, although there is no reference to that in the definition clause. Perhaps a provision in another Act makes it clear that that is what is intended.
I support the Government wholeheartedly in moving to stop a blatant abuse. Spain's membership of the EC, if it achieves it, will undoubtedly require the Community to respond by rethinking its approach to the entitlement of Spanish vessels to fish in what are currently British waters. There is also, no doubt, the problem of quota hopping, but it would be inappropriate to attempt to deal with that within the ambit of a House of Commons Bill, as it is not a problem peculiar to this country. It is a problem common to all members of the EC, and EC legislation is the appropriate way to tackle that problem.
I congratulate the Minister on his expedition in bringing this measure forward.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: It is a scandal that the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 enabled what are in truth, substance and reality foreign fishing vessels to evade, avoid and abuse the necessary control regulations that were introduced to protect not only our own fishermen but the sea as a whole through which fish migrate, as well as their breeding stocks. The Act never envisaged that it would be used, or abused, to enable those regulations to be set aside.
The Government introduced the Bill to deal with that distinct abuse. I owe it to the House to tell it that last Thursday I received from a man who described himself—I have no reason to suppose inaccurately—as Major-General Gribbon, who apparently belongs to that occupation known as parliamentary consultant, a long document that contained arguments that I believe to be wholly spurious on behalf of the joint venture companies. It also made serious, defamatory and wholly untrue allegations against hon. Members of this House, and fishermen.
I shall not repeat the allegations by name against hon. Members, because I see no reason why I should give currency to defamatory statements. However, Major-General Gribbon presumed to state that one hon. Member—who tonight has assured me that it is untrue—would support amendments to wreck the Bill which Major-General Gribbon had the effontery to invite me to introduce—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes. Major-General Gribbon also alleged that the fishermen were saying privately that they opposed the Bill while they were saying publicly that they supported it.
I took the trouble last weekend to see the senior available officer of the fishermen's association in my constituency, who told me the same in private as they had done in public: that the fishermen support the Bill. I wrote back to the said Major-General Gribbon in terms that left him in no doubt about my views on the Bill. I have today received by messenger a letter from a firm called Thomas Cooper and Stibbard of 27 Leadenhall Street. The heading on the notepaper gives no hint of whether the firm owns a chain of fishmongers, a fairground entertainment, Spanish fishing vessels or anything else. The writer, a Mr, S. J. Swabey—whose name also appears on the heading


and who could not even be bothered to sign the letter, it is merely signed p.p. S. J. Swabey—says in the second paragraph:
I am the Secretary of one or two of the Joint Venture Companies and my firm acts as solicitors for several of them.
The secretary of a company has a serious and not a light or facetious function. If this Mr. Swabey does not even know whether he is supposed to be secretary of one or two of the joint venture companies, what better testimony could the House have that these are spurious bodies set up with officers who are men of straw to evade the true purposes of this Government and Parliament? I should not have known that if he had not taken the trouble to show it in his letter. I am most grateful to Mr. Swabey for sending to me by messenger, even though he could not be bothered to sign the letter, such damning testimony of the gravity with which he takes and discharges his own office as
Secretary of one or two of the Joint Venture Companies and my firm acts as solicitors for several of them.
I take it that Thomas Cooper and Stibbard are solicitors who act for these companies. When an hon. Member reeives two communications of this kind, neither of which is marked private and confidential, he has a duty to share them with those hon. Members who wish to take part in the deliberations of the House on a matter of this sort. I have discharged my duty in so doing. It illuminates the shadier activities of some of those who describe themselves as parliamentary consultants and some firms of solicitors who take on the job of acting for bodies such as these joint venture companies. I make that judgment on the basis of their own statements in the letter, a copy of which I shall be happy to lay upon the Table of House.

Sir Walter Clegg: My hon. Friend may
take some comfort from clause 6, which says that
any director, manager, secretary"—
which would apply in the case that he has described—
or other officer of the body corporate, he, as well as the body corporate, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence".

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It would perhaps be highly advisable for Mr. S. J. Swabey of Thomas Cooper and Stibbard to discover whether he is secretary of one or two of the joint venture companies and, if so, of which.
All hon. Members are being commendably brief. There is one further thing that I wish to say. In the document that Major-General Gribbon—I take it that at least his military rank is genuine—sent me, he exhibited an astonishing ignorance of the habits of fish. He claimed that these joint venture companies could do no possible damage to our inshore fishermen because their activities would be conducted only in sector 7 of a map which he attached, around southern Ireland. Major-General Gribbon—not, I am happy to say, Rear-Admiral—is clearly ignorant of the habits of fishes, which have not yet discovered that they are confined to certain sectors, that they may not move from one sector to another, but must breed where they live, where they feed, where they are caught.
The whole of our experience demonstrates the contrary. The reason why international as well as national control is needed is that fish move from one place to another. If they are fished in one place, they are not available in another place. If the year-classes are upset in one area, the appearance of mature fish will be upset in another. Major-

General Gribbon told me that the joint venture companies want to catch only 4,200 tonnes of hake in sector 7, whereas our inshore fishermen catch only 3,000 tonnes; so is there not enough for everybody?
The whole history of the rape of the fish stocks of the past 15 years has been that what is taken by one is not available for another, in other areas. Hake are among the most valuable fish on the British market. If hake are taken in one area, lo and behold, they will not be available in the same richesse in another.
I understand, of course, that public relations men who think they have found a richer field in the sea of Parliament, and therefore describe themselves as parliamentary consultants, cannot be expected to understand anything about the highly technical business of fisheries. In that case, however, they would do better not to send messages of that kind to Members of Parliament and to confine themselves to giving bad advice to those who are foolish enough to pay for it—by which I mean their clients.
I wish the Bill godspeed tonight, and may it go through all its processes in both Houses as rapidly as its merit deserves, which is very rapidly. I have not in 22 years as a Member of this House known a worse example of those who offer their services to advise vested interests attempting to mislead Members of Parliament—including in a defamatory way—and of members of the honourable profession of solicitors writing and admitting to their own, if not corruption, at least gross professional negligence in not even knowing of what companies they announce they are secretaries. These facts need to be weighed by the House when it judges whether the forces arrayed to continue the destruction of our fishing stocks are not such as to justify the exceptional, rapid, well-drafted and effective methods which the Government are asking the House to approve tonight to deal with the demonstrated, real and urgent evil.

Mr. James Johnson: After that unusual but stimulating speech from the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), I begin by saying that I support the Bill. At first glance, I did not think that there was much in it. However, looking at the Conservative Benches, almost packed at this time of night, I decided that there must be something in it. So what lies behind it?
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), I wish the Bill a fair wind, but I should like to hear a little more about the sleeping or floating giant in the bay of Biscay—the Spanish fleet. If it can catch 3 million tonnes of fish per annum, that will dwarf our total. If it were allowed to move about the southwestern end of the English channel and elsewhere, it would do some damage to our stocks. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what he fears in that respect. If it enters the market, we shall clearly have someting to contend with.
With regard to fishery protection, we spend most of our time in debates upon EC matters condemning the fact that we have insufficient monitoring and policing of the waters. What are we to do about that? My fear is that we shall have inadequate vessels to stop, detain, board, inspect and then punish the people who may come into our waters to catch fish.
In Hull we have suffered over the years. Earlier there was some mention of a Select Committee dealing with fisheries and which, in its findings, said that Her Majesty's Government would be well advised to consider the use of trawlers, many of which lie in St. Andrew's dock in Hull, and which, with not too much expense, could be converted fairly quickly so that they could be used as a more than adequate short-term addition to our fishery protection fleet. Would the Minister say something about that in his reply? Those vessels have rendered yeoman service in the past in catching fish. If they could be suitably converted they could provide employment to our fishermen who would man them. They would be able to check, contain and look after not only Spanish vessels but any other vessels catching hake or any other species lying within 12, 15 or 200 miles of our shores.

Sir Walter Clegg: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson). It is of great importance that the measure should be properly enforced when it comes into effect. There are suitable provisions in the Bill to deal with enforcement.
I fully support the Bill. If we discuss what might happen when Spain joins the EEC we shall be waiting for the Bill for ever. However, warning shots have been fired over the Minister's bows as to what may happen when Spain joins the EEC, or what may happen to other members of the EEC which try to get British registration and which might not be affected by the Bill. At least the House has been warned of some of the difficulties that may occur in future. The sooner the Bill gets on to the statute book the better.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who has now left the Chamber, made a splendid speech. I fully support his remarks about hake and the movement of fish. There was a big hake fishery off the Minches. That was fished out especially by the Spanish, and that affected my constituents accordingly. If my hon. Friend can prevent Major-General Gribbon from doing that, so much the better.

Mr. Robert Hughes: All the speakers in this debate have said how pleased they are to see the Bill and how quickly it should go through. I do not want to be the ghost at the feast, but I sometimes think that the self-congratulation about how quickly the Bill has been rushed through has been somewhat overdone. It is many months since the problem was drawn to the Minister's attention. Indeed, it is probably at least two years since doubts were first raised in the House and elsewhere about the way in which people were, not exactly quota-hopping, but finding their way into British waters and using all the facilities that were available.
We are glad that some action is being taken. What bothers me, however, is that although Bills can sometimes go through all their stages very quickly, and I understand that it is intended that this Bill should complete all its stages today, when we draw attention to other areas of difficulty over the fishing fleets it takes a very long time for action to be taken.
One assumes from what the Minister has said that it is intended that orders under the measure will be made by April this year. I am glad to hear that, because I have been disturbed to find that legislation can lie on the statute book

for many years without being activated. I refer specifically to the Merchant Shipping Act 1970, several sections of which, relating to the safety of vessels in the merchant shipping fleet, including the fisheries fleet, have never yet been activated. Discussions are now taking place between the trade unions, the employers and the Department of Trade. The 1970 Act is to be amended, yet vast sections of it have never been brought into effect.
When we are considering legislation about British fishing boats we ought to look closely at matters other than the problems connected with nationality. It is a pity that we cannot take the opportunity to go wider than that narrow aspect of fisheries legislation. I should have been happier if we could have looked at safety matters too.
There is one area in which the Minister will have to take swift action. Legislation may be required, or the Minister may already have sufficient powers to deal with the problem. I have received complaints recently about the distinction drawn between the treatment of our vessels fishing in Norwegian waters and the treatment of Norwegian fishing vessels in our waters.
It is said—perfectly accurately, I believe—that the logging of the catches of our vessels in Norwegian waters is very stringent indeed. No one would quarrel with that. I have always felt that if we had restrictions and quotas and were concerned about conservation, we ought to be certain that the measures were carried out properly. I am told, however, that according to the way in which the catch of British vessels in Norwegian waters is measured, a seven-stone box of gutted fish is counted as weighing 158 lbs. The figure that counts towards the quota is about twice as much as the weight of the fish. That is causing great anxiety among British fishermen, especially those from Aberdeen, who fish in Norwegian waters.
Those who sail from Aberdeen complain bitterly that their nets are checked very carefully as to the size of mesh in the cod end when they fish in Norwegian waters but that no such checks are made on Norwegian vessels fishing in our waters. Indeed, it is strongly argued that no one knows how much the Norwegians catch in our waters because the catches are not properly reported. If that is so, it is a major defect and a large gap in any reasonable reciprocal agreement between this country and Norway. It is also said that Norwegian vessels come to our waters carrying nets with a cod end mesh that is illegal in their own country's waters. If there is to be a reciprocal agreement, it should be on all fours.
Another serious enforcement matter must be checked and if there is a deficiency in the law the Minister should take every opportunity to put it right before the Bill leaves the House. I admit that some of the technical matters are confusing, but it seems that around the cod end there are rings which, if the amount of fish is too great, will break and release the catch as the net is lifted out of the water. I am told that the Norwegians are using nets with far more than the usual number of rings, which is highly dangerous and allows them to take catches far greater than those to which they would normally be entitled.
I appreciate that stories of this kind sometimes turn out to be hearsay, but the evidence put to me and no doubt to other hon. Members shows that there is serious concern in Aberdeen about the way in which our vessels are treated in Norway when our fisheries protection officers have no way of checking on the activities of the Norwegians.
I have always been told that we have ample powers and regulations to ensure that the activities for foreign vessels


in our waters are properly controlled. I hope that that is so, but one of the difficulties that we encounter when a Bill goes through the House so rapidly is that we are not in a position to table amendments after hearing the Minister's replies on issues raised on Second Reading. Therefore, although there is a general understanding that the Bill is necessary and overdue and needs a fair wind, Departments should conduct their affairs in such a way as to make proper use of parliamentary time and allow a decent interval between publication of the Bill and Second Reading and between Second Reading and Committee stage. The Government, for their own purposes, have been cutting corners in passing legislation. I shall not detain the House by citing examples, but the Government have certainly become too prone to this kind of behaviour. That tendency should not be encouraged. The procedures of the House should be properly used so that we may properly raise the issues involved and put our constituents' views to the House.

Mr. Robert Hicks: As a Member of Parliament for a west country constituency which has important fishing interests, I welcome the Bill. I know from conversations that I have recently had with fishermen that they also welcome it, both publicly and privately.
Recently, the United Kingdom inshore fishing industry has faced many problems. Some are the result of circumstances over which the Government have had little or no control, others have arisen from events over which the Government have some influence or control but about which they have not been prepared to act, and others still have arisen because the measures that have been taken have been too late or inadequate.
With regard to the present problem of the re-registration of foreign, especially Spanish, fishing vessels, the Government have acted correctly and with a commendable speed that reflects the nature and extent of this growing problem. The House will know that the south-west has been much involved with that development. In all, 67 foreign fishing vessels have been re-registered and most of their catches have been landed in fishing ports in Devon and Cornwall. Our fishing grounds off the south-west coast are among the richest in the country, but the balance between over-fishing and the need for conservation is sensitive. The experiences of older fishermen who have spent their whole working lives there confirm the frailty of that balance.
One has only to speak to older fishermen in the southwest to learn that about 60 years ago the herring was predominant. The herring left suddenly and there was a decline in fishing fortunes. After the second world war, the pilchard came into its own. There were several good seasons and then the catch declined. More recently, the same has happened with mackerel. That is why, although the majority of the vessels concerned may fish outside what is normally regarded as the inshore fishing grounds of Devon and Cornwall, there is always the fear that they may follow the fish back to our areas and compete with our own inshore fishing fleets.
I welcome the legislation. The key to its success or failure depends upon the effectiveness of control and enforcement. When my right hon. Friend introduced the Bill, I was a little worried when he said that there would

be no extra resources for policing and enforcement. Many of us who have experience of trying to police the historic rights of fishing vessels that have access to our waters feel that the level of policing and enforcement has been inadequate. I look to my right hon. Friend the Minister to give us an assurance that the resources will be increased so that our fishermen feel that they are being adequately protected.
The second point about enforcement concerns the catching of the fish. What is to prevent the fish from being sent direct to Spain, rather than being landed in Plymouth, Falmouth or Penzance? The majority of the fish that are landed in the west country are moved via the Roscoff ferry through France to Spain by road.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Before my hon. Friend concludes his most interesting speech, may I tell him that this expert on fisheries, Major-General Gribbon, told me that that is exactly what his joint venture companies do. They send the fish to Spain because they have free entry there. That is the fiddle. Under the Merchant Shipping Act 1971 the boats are British, but the Spaniards recognise the reality that they are Spanish and so allow their catches into Spain. They let the cat out of the bag at the same time.

Mr. Prescott: How will the Bill stop that?

Mr. Hicks: If that is the case, it emphasises the need for more enforcement while those vessels are fishing.
My right hon. Friend the Minister must take seriously the comments made on behalf of several such companies. In our excellent regional daily newspaper, the Western Evening Herald, one gentleman, who is described as a
London financier whose Celtic Management and Trading Company controls 14 of the Spanish boats now flying the Red Ensign, said: 'Such an order would without doubt cause us a problem, but not one which we could not get over.'
If those people are successful in getting round the legislation, that means that the legislation is ineffective. We in the south-west look to the legislation to be effective so that such comments do not become reality.

Mr. David Penhaligon: The only real criticism that is likely to be directed at the Minister about this Bill from the west country is that it has been so long coming. I have corresponded with the Minister on the subject for about two years, and I recall his assurances that this would be a minor problem that could be resolved simply. That has not been so, and here we are two years later welcoming this legislation.
This problem has occurred in Cornwall and Devon more than in any other part of Britain. A fair proportion of the boats using this manoeuvre land their catches at ports in Cornwall, especially in Penzance and Falmouth. There is no doubt that the practice, in an odd way in the immediate term, produces business in some south-west ports. The boats refuel, re-tackle and buy food for their crews in those ports, which has generated some business in the Cornish community. That must be recognised, but I am prepared to say to those who have benefited from this peculiar trade that, for the general good, they must lose some business in the short term. I do that mainly because of the experience of the trans-shipment of mackerel from my county, when many defended what I regarded at the time as an obscene practice on the basis that some crews on the Soviet, Bulgarian and Egyptian boats in Falmouth harbour used to buy some carpets or the odd washing


machine in the shops there. Some people were prepared to see the rape and destruction of the mackerel stocks in our part of the country just to ensure some shopping ashore. The fact that some shops would have lost business is sad, but in the long term the county would have been better off had steps been taken earlier to stop the transshipment of mackerel.
I welcome the Bill, although I do not know whether it will succeed. I do not know what the dodge may be to get round it, but such is the pressure of the world's fishermen to find somewhere to fish that one suspects that the regulations are examined with the proverbial fine-toothed comb to find yet another loophole to enable them to fish in various areas.
I should like to ask the Minister what seems a ludicrous question. What is a crew? The Bill gives definitions of the British fishing boat, a British sea-fishery officer, the master, Ministers and sea fish. However, what is a crew? Clause 3(3)(b) refers to the
nationality of members of the crew of that boat.
It does not say "on the boat". Will the Minister let me know whether a crew is just those who are on the boat or whoever the captain of the boat alleges is the crew? There is a practice of getting round some of the regulations by finding someone on shore who is willing to say that he is a member of the crew, when he is not, for a few pounds a week, to make the disposition of nationalities correct within the fishing boat. That all sounds ridiculous, but such manoeuvres are taking place to circumnavigate the legislation.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is the custom that before the fishing vessel leaves the port the skipper has to enter the names of the crew on the log book of the vessel? It is then subject, if necessary, to inspection by the fishery officer. If anyone is on the vessel who is not recorded on the log book, that would be unofficial and illegal.

Mr. Penhaligon: If that is correct, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. However, one constantly asks such questions about the finer end of what is or is not the law. One never ceases to be amazed at how loose what apparently is an obvious point of law appears to be. If the hon. Gentleman says that when the boat leaves the captain has to state as its crew only those who are on board at that precise moment and that it would be an offence to say that someone was part of the crew who at that precise moment was not on board the boat, that is a significant step forward. I look forward to the Minister clarifying that point. If that is so, we are making some progress.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: A very important point has come out of the hon. Gentleman's substantial argument. That is the value of having the detail of the legislation done by regulation rather than by Act of Parliament so that as soon as loopholes are found the Minister can make regulations rather than have to pass an amending Bill through both Houses. Does it not recommend the way in which the Bill has been constructed that the loopholes can be closed by regulation?

Mr. Penhaligon: Oddly enough, that was my next point. I do not normally like enabling legislation. I have opposed it on a number of occasions and am still not keen on it as a point of general principle. The fact that the Bill enables the Minister to make regulations may be

appropriate, as if the first try does not work he can try again. One wonders whether the basic legislation restricts the Minister to make appropriate regulations.
I notice that clause 1(4) states that it is illegal to discriminate between nationals. I can tell the Minister what would be the most popular regulation in my county. He should pass a regulation that 25 per cent. of all the crews on boats fishing out of Cornwall should have surnames beginning with "Tre", "Pol" or "Pen". Such a regulation might do a great deal to bolster confidence in the south-west. However, that would be illegal under the current Bill, as it is said that one cannot discriminate between states or members of those states.
One wonders, therefore, whether the basic Bill that we shall pass—I shall not oppose it, as it represents our interests—will cover all the loopholes. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) drew attention to a statement by Mr. Taylor of a company called Celtic Management and Training that the Bill may cause difficulties. However, he is confident that they may be overcome. Could he suddenly recruit a large number of Breton fishermen who might cover the names starting with "Tre", "Pol" and "Pen" idea? Could he suddenly recruit a large number of Breton fishermen to come to Cornwall to use his boats in precisely the same way as hitherto? One assumes that the real reason why these boats come is that somebody is making a lot of money and a good living. If there is a living to be made, and wages can be paid because the operation is profitable, one wonders the confidence expressed by Mr. Taylor might not be well placed.
I am sure the House will encourage the Minister eventually to stop this nonsense. There is no way that Europe can build up a fishing policy with each nation responsible for enforcing the regulations within its own area if this kind of practice, which has been well publicised and has been significant in my part of the world, becomes the norm.
I thank the Minister for presenting the Bill. I hope this is the last time the House discusses this subject. I have been a Member of the House and studied fishing for long enough to know that one's confidence that a problem is solved is usually misplaced. Solving one problem just leads to another. The Minister's Bill represents progress. It will receive no opposition from me. I asked several questions and I would appreciate an answer to them.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: The Bill is yet another example of the Government's commitment to the fishing industry. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the speed with which they have acted on a problem of serious concern to fishermen in my constituency as well as to the fishing industry in general.

Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) consider a point that has been bugging me for the past hour? The reason why the Government are acting speedily is that the Opposition have agreed with the Government to get the Bill through the House speedily. Why is it not possible to allow some of the other legislation that we need in this industry and others to proceed with the same speed? The hon. Member should not be over-congratulating his Front Bench. The Opposition have approved this Bill and support it. I wish the Government would do the same in other directions.

Mr. McQuarrie: The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) referred to the speed with which the Bill is being pushed through the House. To my knowledge there are no other immediate problems in the fishing industry that require to be brought forward at this time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Trawlers."] I am not talking about trawlers. I am talking about the fishing industry in general. Hull, Grimsby and Aberdeen are full of idle trawlers because there is no deep water fishing. Until we have deep water fishing, there is no work for the trawlers. I accept what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) has said repeatedly in the House. Why do we not convert the trawlers into policing vessels? That would be a use for them. We are not likely to get deep water fishing. That is a means of using many of the trawlers that are lying rusty. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) knows of the trawlers that are in the harbour in his constituency.
I congratulate my right hon. Friends on the speed on which they have acted on this problem. With the Fisheries Bill and the completion of the common fisheries policy by this Government there remains the problem that the Bill seeks to remove. For 10 years, when we were fighting our way through the European Community to secure the fisheries policy, it was not thought that the British fisherman would be penalised by countries that were fishing in our waters that were not members of the Community. They had seen a loophole whereby they could not only acquire the ownership of a British vessel, but acquire a share of our catch quota and the benefits of cash that the fishermen were awarded during the period of the critical cash crisis, when £57 million was paid to the British fishing industry by the Government. That, was far in excess of what was paid by the Labour Government.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Gentleman, with his alleged knowledge of the industry, should not keep repeating the canard that the Government have given the fishing industry more than the Labour Government gave. Not once did the industry go to the Labour Government for aid. It has had to come to the Government for aid because it is in such a parlous state. It got help eventually, but not easily.

Mr. McQuarrie: The hon. Gentleman's intervention makes me smile, because it was obvious that if the industry had ever gone to the Labour Government for aid it would have gone away empty-handed.
When it was established that foreigners were acquiring ownership of British vessels, it was found that they were putting British skippers on board, but the crews were composed mainly of foreign nationals. Something had to be done to safeguard our fishermen who were being deprived of the catches and cash awards to which they were entitled. It was seen that there would have to be an amendment to cover British vessels that were coming under the control of foreigners. The Bill will close that loophole and will be welcomed by all sections of the catching industry.
When the House debated the common fisheries policy on 31 January this year my right hon. Friend the Minister of State mentioned the anxiety being expressed about the number of Spanish vessels operating in the south-west and which our fishermen called the Spanish armada. My right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture and his Minister of State agreed that there was cause for that anxiety and

announced that they intended to introduce a Bill to prevent Spanish operators and others from evading national and Community arrangements, so that the interests of our fishermen could be protected.
It was obvious that the Spaniards were taking advantage of our liberal laws on registration and were exploiting the loophole that British fishermen wished to see closed. My right hon. Friend the Minister agreed to bring in the Bill as quickly as possible to close the loophole. It is to the Government's credit that they have overcome the complications in framing the Bill and have introduced it in such a short time.
It is also worthy of note that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire West, the shadow spokesman on fisheries, said that if the Bill were brought in, the Opposition would give it all possible support, unless there were unforeseen difficulties, and would give it a speedy passage through the House. The hon. Gentleman said tonight that the only unforeseen difficulty was what might happen if Spain joins the EC, but that is not connected with the Bill.

Mr. Buchan: We are going to support the Bill, but there is a major difficulty here. The difficulty involves foreign seamen. What the Bill means is non-Community seamen. As the Bill does not say Spanish but "other than Community", what will happen if they are Belgian, French, German or Italian sailors? That is the problem. While we support the Bill and believe that it will largely deal with the problems, there remains that immediate difficulty. I wish the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) would see it and let me go for my cup of coffee.

Mr. McQuarrie: Before the hon. Gentleman goes for his cup of coffee, he will probably have noted what my right hon. Friend said in answer to one of my other hon. Friends. He said that the problems was connected principally with the Spaniards although there were some Norwegians, but very few. The main problem with the Bill is the Spaniards, and not the Belgians, the Norwegians or anyone else.

Mr. Prescott: The Spanish recruit them.

Mr. McQuarrie: They may well recruit them, but, once the Bill is enacted, at least we will be able to handle the matter. The Minister has only to lay an order before the House to establish that he can look after British interests by precluding from our waters those who might invade them.

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) does not understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) is saying to him. This Bill does not give a preference to British fishermen but gives preference to EC nationals. It cannot discriminate between Britain, France, Germany and Greece. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the Bill positively discriminates in favour of British fishermen, he is not reading the Bill correctly and is missing the point that my hon. Friend is trying to make.

Mr. McQuarrie: I am not saying that the Bill positively discriminates in favour of British fishermen, but that it is a protection for British fishermen—

Mr. Prescott: It is not.

Mr. McQuarrie: —against illegal fishing, by Spaniards in particular.
I am worried by two implications of the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to advise the House on these matters when he comes to reply. First, there is the question of policing by fisheries officers, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) raised earlier. How many of these officers will be on patrol at sea and not shore-based? Will there be an adequate number of British fisheries officers? Is it the intention that the European Communities special unit, which has been setup under the common fisheries policy—

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Thirteen.

Mr. McQuarrie: I am well aware of the number of fisheries officers.
I was about to ask how many would be made available, if the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) had allowed me to finish.

Mr. Mitchell: rose—

Mr. McQuarrie: Perhaps the hon. Member for Grimsby should clean the wax out of his ears.
Will the European Communities special unit, which has been set up under the common fisheries policy, also be used for policing and inspection whenever investigation is required, so that we shall have an adequate number of fisheries officers to catch these devious characters before they escape from our waters and head for their foreign base ports with their illegal catches?
Secondly, there is the position of Spanish or any other foreign nationals. Once more, because of our liberal laws, they have been able to be classified as British because they have been given a work permit. I am glad that it is the intention that 75 per cent. of the crew will need to be British before a vessel is given a share of the catch quota. If a foreign national has a British work permit, will he be classified as a British citizen or will he permanently remain a foreign national so that the British catch quota can remain with the British fishing fleet?
We must ensure that British fishermen gain from the 10 years of hard work to put the fishing industry on to a profitable footing for the future. I hope that the Bill will cover all the eventualities that arise. It will be welcomed by the fishing industry, especially in my constituency of Aberdeenshire, East, where the fishermen have been incensed by the number of Spanish vessels and other foreign vessels that have been receiving catch quotas from the British catch share merely because they have been registered as British. These vessels have had foreign owners.
I hope that the Bill will have a safe passage through the House and that it will ensure a fair deal for our fishermen without the intervention of foreigners working under the British flag.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I welcome the Bill, but not as slavishly as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie), because I have not been supplied with the same handouts as the hon. Gentleman. It is a welcome measure. It will be welcomed by fishermen in Grimsby. It has been welcomed by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. It is perhaps belated because the problem with which it seeks to deal has been developing for some years as the number of Spanish vessels, especially, registered under the British flag has

increased. it is mainly a south western problem, although we have had one or two examples of the practice in Grimsby.
It is vital to ensure that our quotas provide employment for British fishermen and vessels. I say "British fishermen and vessels" rather than "EC fishermen and vessels". It is vital that we build up the British fleet. Anything that stops the present practice is a contribution to that end. The Opposition welcome the Bill and we have promised it a fair wind, but that should not be a force nine wind. It should be a gentle zephyr rather than a positive peal of acclamation.
The opportunity provided by the Bill has been only partially taken by the Government. They could have done more and, in the view of some of us, especially on the Opposition Benches, they should have done more. There are not many opportunities to introduce legislation for the fishing industry. We welcome the speed with which the Bill has been introduced, but we feel that rather more could have been done for the industry.
This is effectively a temporary measure. Spain's entry into the Common Market is a probability and the nature of the problem will change as soon as Spain becomes a member state. The issue lies not with other countries that are inside or outside the Market, but with Spain and the circumstances that it presents. It has an enormous fishing fleet and when Spain enters the market we shall have to take measures to deal with the problem in another fashion. We could have provided a permanent sanction against an admitted problem—the size of the Spanish fleet and the lack of fishing opportunities for it in the waters around Spain. It will be difficult to regulate any scheme once Spain enters the Market.
The Bill will fail to deal with another problem that is certain to emerge in future, which is that of quota hopping. It has not been a problem in the absence of a common fisheries policy, but it is almost certain to be one now that quotas are defined. Theme will be unused sections of quotas that other people will want to use. There are two ways of solving that problem: first, the unused quotas return to the Common Market and are subject to the Common Market haggling and political balancing, which in the past has led to the creation of paper fish by the Commission to satisfy demand; and, secondly, it can be solved by quota hopping without confrontation but without the decision of the Commission or the Council of Ministers. We should have seized this opportunity to deal with that problem.
There will be a problem with some of the sectoral quotas. Some of our bigger vessels are not equipped with the same heavy gear as the French vessels and will not be as effective in catching fish beyond the 100-fathom line. There will then be unused quotas. That will be ripe for quota hopping or for trading in the Common Market haggle. This measure should have closed the door on quota hopping.
Why does the Bill deal with the nationality of the crew and not with control of the companies engaged in such a practice? It would have been simple to include a requirement that there should be a 75 per cent. British or EC control or voting shares in the companies. The companies rather than the fishermen are the problem, because it is the companies that are engaged in the devious practice of fishing another country's quota.
If the companies are not dealt with, it will be open to them to fudge or fiddle their way round the legislation. The


hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East assured us that the log-book would take care of that. However, it is possible to have personation of fishermen. It is also possible to have people included in the log-book who are not on the vessel. It is possible to envisage fraudulent practices similar to those carried on with tachographs, where people are registered as drivers or paid to say that they are drivers. Unless companies are provided for, there will be an incentive for them to take part in such practices.
It is easier to go to the source of the problem and require that companies should be 75 per cent. British or EC controlled. There would have been no need for the draconian provisions for huge fines and the right of search if the companies had been dealt with. The provisions are perhaps more wide-ranging than necessary. The Government are taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Why have the Government not taken the opportunity provided by the Bill to overhaul the register? It has been said by one of our national fishing organisations that it is possible to register a leaking bucket as a fishing vessel. I believe that the nature of the register, which enables any vessel, foreign or inadequate, to be registered is one of the major causes of the problems and should have been tackled.
An example of the caution of the measure is the failure to seize the opportunity—provided by the admitted need to pass it—to do something to regulate the conditions of service, particularly of the fishermen. The Transport and General Workers Union has for some time put forward the fishermen's charter. It would be possible to use this measure to impose conditions not only with regard to the nationality of fishermen but in relation to the conditions of service. That opportunity should have been taken.
Governments have been dilatory on this matter, specifically with regard to decasualisation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) set up talks between both sides of the industry to obtain decasualisation, which was pretty well agreed by the time the Labour Government lost office in 1979. That was promptly dropped by the incoming Government, and since then nothing has happened.
Here is a chance to do something about the major problem, yet it has not been seized. That is a matter of regret. The Bill shows that the Government can act when prodded by the fishermen's organisations and by the emergence of a real problem. They should have taken the opportunity to deal more broadly not only with the specific problem but with the problems of the fishermen and the fishing industry generally. It is good that the initiative has now been taken, but it could have been much more effective.

Mr. David Mudd: I listened with some alarm to the views of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), who seemed to put forward an eminently fair and sensible solution that Cornish fishing vessels should be entrusted only to those whose names began with "Tre", "Pol" and "Pen". That sounded eminently fair until I realised that that meant that half the Stevenson fleet of Newlyn would be laid up for want of crews and that our beloved county sea fisheries officer, Mr. Tomkin, would find himself similarly beached. I then

realised that the views of the hon. Member for Truro, although boisterous, hardly answered the problems facing the Cornish industry at present.
Within the terms "European harmony" and "good relations", it is fortunate that I am regarded as being of rather low potential ministerial calibre. Were I to have the exalted heights of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and looking at clause 5 of this amazing Bill, I would not be proposing that any vessel caught violating the new requirements should be held for up to three months or until the fine had been paid. I would be proposing that it should be confiscated, given a 100 per cent. British crew, given nets of the precise and proper mesh and fully equipped with all the safety requirements. However, as I am not of ministerial caibre, I shall now return to the Bill as drafted.
I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Sir P. Wall) mention, almost in passing, the magical and mysterious figure that somehow at risk was about £5 million and hundreds of jobs in Cornwall. I do not quarrel with what he said, as he has been given that information. But if there are hundreds of jobs in Cornwall, the jobcentres have not heard about them and nor have the unemployed. If millions of pounds are involved in Cornwall, nor have Her Majesty's inspectors of Inland Revenue.
We can assume that this is part of the wonderful glossy public relations image put out by those who are behind the joint venture operations. No one in Cornwall should assume that these people are on their side. One of the joint venture organisations, in a glossy publication paving the way to its own argument, refers to the Cornish dimension as having its
roots in Cornish xenophobia rather than in fact. In any case, they
presumably meaning the Cornish
are not exclusively anti-Spanish but anti- any outside influence.
So much for considering the Cornish people and their sensitivity. There is even better to come. It involves hon. Members. Perpetuating the great myth that the Cornishman will say one thing in public which is exactly the opposite of what he states in private, the joint venture operations say:
The public voice has over the years established good contacts with local and specialist press, TV and MPs. They provide them with easy to use 'copy' laundered to their specific needs.
That is the element and the evidence of the cynicism with which the joint venture operations seek to manipulate Cornwall and the entire British fishery resources for their own ends. The only point at which it would appear that the joint venture organisations have anything to say by way of amendment to the Bill is their suggestion that clause 1(3) should be amended following the word "order" to permit it to be phased in over a period of two years.
I must ask the simple and obvious questions that hang upon the proposition of phasing-in over two years. Is it because these people reckon that the Spaniards will be in the Community in two years? Do they perhaps believe and hope that we will be out of the Community inside two years? Is it because they reckon that it might take them two years to wriggle their way through the rules and regulations, thereby belying their threats that they can already develop alternative arrangements? Or is it because—this is far more interesting—in their quick greed and their fast dash for profit, they know that their efforts will leave no industry for anyone at the end of two years?

Mr. John Prescott: I do not intend to repeat some of the remarks that have been made about the Bill and with which I agree. I wish, however, to deal with one or two points of principle and their relationship to the Merchant Shipping Acts. As a seaman for 10 years, I have spent some time in the House calling for changes in those Acts. If hon. Members consider that two years is a long time for dealing with merchant shipping legislation, I assure them that it is repaid when one considers changes affecting conditions of labour in the industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) has dealt extensively with the problems of redundancy and I do not wish to tread on his ground. However, many hon. Members feel apprehensive when the Government are able to bring forward legislation speedily but are unable to display similar speed when dealing with redundancy payments.
I agree that it will be important to see what measures are proposed in the orders. I have proposed a private Member's Bill to establish a maritime commission to handle changes within the industry. This would be far more efficient than trying to meet legislative requirements within the limits of parliamentary time. I shall not go further, except to say that the Government obviously did not support my Bill.
The Bill is concerned with the protection, it is thought, of British interests. However, because of the existence of the Common Market, it cannot define British interests. It is therefore necessary to talk about Community nationals. That is what the Bill means. It does not mean British nationals. We cannot refer to "British nationals" in the legislation, because if we did so we would be in breach of a number of European obligations in that regard. The Minister said that 75 per cent. of the membership should be Community nationals. Presumably, therefore, 25 per cent, of the crew could be non-community nationals.
Under the Merchant Shipping Acts these ships are required to be crewed by a British captain and a British mate. In the Bill we propose to extend that so that there will be Community nationals, the assumption being that the crews will be found in Britain. It has been suggested in some of the documents that it may be difficult to find crew members in the Cornwall area. I do not know whether it is possible to hire people in Cornwall to work on these trawlers. Apparently the purpose of the Bill is to bring some economic activity to the south-west.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Prescott: I do not want Major-General Gribbon.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Surely the question is whether they can get Cornish crews at British rates of pay or at Spanish rates of pay.

Mr. Prescott: I shall come to that matter, which is relevant both to fishing boats and to merchant shipping boats. It is an important issue.
I should point out that there has been as much anger about what the Humberside and Scottish fleets have done in the Cornwall area as about Spain, so I do not know whether the legislation and regulations will eventually say that people from Cornwall alone shall be employed on these vessels.
The general fear is that, somehow, Spain is taking our fishing quotas, getting all the benefits of that fish and depriving the west country of all the advantages. If that is the Bill's purpose, it is a matter about which we cannot be sure, even leaving aside the argument that Spain may be in the market in a few years' time. Under the Bill, if the employer still wants to remain a joint British company he can do so, because we do not want to change that. So the company can still operate. The only thing that is now required is that the labour is not Spanish. Clearly, it can be any other form of Community labour. In the British merchant fleet one can find many examples of cheap crews. One can find them throughout the Community., and those crews will be Community nationals.
The dossier that we have received says that two years are needed for adjustments on the grounds of safety and profit. Clearly profit will be a consideration. I assume that the companies have access to the Spanish market, because they have Spanish crews. The Spanish Government see the ships as Spanish ships, even though they are registered in Britain, to get the quotas. Presumably, if they are denied the opportunity to get Spanish crews they will still legitimately claim to the Spanish authorities "We are still the same old Spanish-British company, but we cannot have Spanish crews now because the British are stopping us doing that. What we will do now is to have cheaper labour, because the requirement is not to meet the wage demand of the Spanish labour. We will get it from a number of sources. We can get it considerably cheaper than British labour from Cornwall, or wherever it might be." If they are out to maximise their profit, as I assume they are, there are other financial reasons why they would not want to get labour from Britain. There is nothing to stop them bringing their labour, taking their quotas, and even taking the fish back to Spain. So the Bill will not offer us any protection.
It is not simply a matter of Spain coming into the market. Greek crews could be used. I know from my own experience, and from the flags of convenience crews that we were constantly fighting, that one can get people to work for £60 or £70 a month. That may be a huge loophole in the Bill.
Reference has been made to work permits, but in this case they will not apply. We have been fighting for work permits to apply to the oil rigs in the North sea. We have foreign labour constantly coming out to the oil rigs. We are told that the Immigration Acts do not apply to foreign labour on the oil rigs, so that work permits cannot be applied. Where the Immigration Acts do not apply, work permits cannot apply.
If ships crewed by European nationals come into our waters take the hake and do not come ashore, they do not need a work permit. Where will we impose the work permit requirement for them? We cannot even properly impose the conditions of policing so that we can see that they are observing whatever is laid down. Very few immigration officers will go out to fishing boats to see whether people have a work permit. The realities of maritime life are such that what applies on shore cannot easily be applied at sea. Therefore, work permits cannot necessarily be regarded as the answer, although I should like to hear what the Minister says.
I could not help smiling when the Minister talked about British waters up to 200 miles. I thought that all we learnt from the debate on Community policy was that Britain, under a Labour Government, had given away British


waters in the negotiations—there was no such thing as British waters up to 200 miles. We were a little confused in thinking that the Minister meant up to 12 miles. It would be my view that the Oslo agreement does not precondition the argument about 200 miles and that in that sense they are still British waters and not Community waters. I should like to hear the Minister's view on that.
There is a very important principle in the Bill. We are now talking about British vessels, whether they are trawlers, liners or cargo ships, and they have certain conditions that are common to all. They have certain safety standards to apply, as well as manning requirements and so on. They will vary depending on the size of the ship. Even those ships involved in fishing will vary considerably.
We have always said that the certification should be of a certain standard. We are now laying down a condition for one specific area, in that we are to say what shall be the nationality of the crew. My union, the National Union of Seamen, will greatly welcome that provision, because we are campaigning very hard about it, but whenever we go to the Prime Minister and argue for it she tells us that there is free trade and that the Government believe in free competition. Now we are prepared to extend the provision under our Merchant Shipping Acts so that fishing vessels, under these condition, will have 75 per cent. British crews. Under those Acts it is possible to get a crew from the Cayman islands or from Bermuda. Our colonial obligations open up all sorts of areas in relation to the definition of "British", although presumably the nationality provisions may now have some effect. It is a minefield that is opening up in respect of British ships.
I welcome the fact that we are now prepared to lay down what the composition of the crew should be in terms of nationality, although I have to take it with a pinch of salt in regard to the discriminatory factors. We have constantly tried to get the Government to accept, and they now accept, that Asians can be paid only 25 per cent. of the wage of British crews on British ships, simply because they are exempted from the Race Relations Acts. We allow race discrimination in wages to continue on British ships, and presumably even on the fishing vessels the same discriminatory principles could be continued. That might well be another attractive feature for anyone looking for an economic incentive.
I am sorry that there is no Minister present from the Department of Trade. The House should have been informed of the implications of this important change. It may be seen only as a fishing measure, but today we are laying down certain principles and conditions affecting British registration of British ships under the Merchant Shipping Acts. Considerable precedents are being created.
I wanted to make those points clear to the Minister. I do not suppose for a moment that he will answer them, but his Department should consider them.

Mr. McQuarrie: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Bill is about the use of the quotas and the fact that fish are being taken illegally by boats which do not have a 75 per cent. national crew?

Mr. Prescott: I understand that point, but I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman has said will be affected by the Bill. The avenues that I have mentioned will still be open.
One may talk about quotas of fish, but the British seaman might say "What about proportions of cargo?" About 40 per cent. of cargo is now carried by foreign ships. The seamen are saying that it is British-generated business and British jobs, and that there should be British preference treatment. What is the difference between fish and cargo? We are extending a privilege and a protection to the British fishing fleet. I hope that we shall now begin to extend it to the British shipping fleet.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: First, I should like to raise my voice in protest about the way in which the Bill is being taken. I wonder whether, when they agreed to take all the proceedings in one day, my right hon. Friends realised the depth of the questions that would be asked from both sides of the House about the relevance of the Bill. We shall not now be able to have a proper Committee stage.
The procedure under which amendments to the Bill were tabled was unsatisfactory. It was not until half-past two last Friday that it was possible to put down amendments because the appropriate resolution had not been passed by the House. The time at which that resolution came before the House cut back considerably the amount of time available to hon. Members to think through the ramifications of the Bill and its underlying principles. I therefore regret very much that we are to have the Second Reading and the remaining stages of the Bill tonight, and that we shall not be able to explore many of the important points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Sir P. Wall), for instance, raised some important questions about the agreements that have been tentatively arrived at—pencilled in—as to what the Spanish share of the catch is to be, and which Community countries will contribute towards it. How many vessels is Spain to have, and what quotas, when she enters the Community? Various points have been raised which make it clear that there should have been a Minister here from the Department of Trade. Speeches from both sides of the House have shown that there is a need for a great deal of clarification about what the Bill will do. It seems that the Bill provides that 75 per cent. of crews must come from the Community. There has been no alteration in terms of the ownership of the boats or the means by which the fish are merchandised. There is nothing to stop the Spanish companies or the joint venture companies or the major-general and his henchmen controlling the passage of a ship or of the fish once they have been caught, or the various lines and routes of distribution.
If that is so, we are merely going through a cosmetic exercise. The Bill has been brought forward in reply to quite proper pressures from the south-west of England, where the fishermen are keen to preserve their traditional grouds and what they regard as their traditional catches, and to keep their jobs. There is, of course, no guarantee of jobs, although we all hope and trust that the Minister will achieve his aims.
The Bill is being put through with speed to meet political pressures from the south-west. Perhaps the Liberals or the SDP have a strong influence in that area, or perhaps there are a number of Tory marginal seats and that is what is producing the pressure for change. But when we consider the other problems besetting the fishing


industry in the United Kingdom, we can only conclude that this change has been forced upon the Government by political pressures from the friends of the Government.
In areas that are not represented by friends of the Government or that have not been bought off by knighthoods, the pressures for improvements in the industry, and fairness to the industry, have not been considered.
If we can legislate overnight for the nationality of the crew, we can do the same for terms and conditions of employment, safety regulations, proper redundancy payments, and so on. But the Minister is not prepared to do that to defend the interests of fishermen. We are therefore forced to conclude that quite proper political pressures have been brought to bear by his friends in the south-west of England. I understand that and I do not criticise it. I simply put down that marker so that a future Labour Government can bear it in mind when dealing with pressure from the former deep sea fleets.
If this is an important measure, as the discussion so far has shown it to be, if the Bill receives a Second Reading today the Minister should in all decency give us time to explore the provisions further. That would not hurt the Government, as they waited two years or more before introducing the Bill, but it would give us the opportunity to discuss matters such as the status of non-Communautaire crew members.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has said, under the present legislation the skipper and first mate generally have to be British nationals if the boat is British registered. As we know from the deep sea ports, however, vessels have been bought and crewed by Spaniards and a British skipper has been taken on for purely titular purposes. Although under our law that skipper may be responsible for the safety of the ship all matters pertaining to its sailing and operation, the areas to be fished, discipline and control of the crew and so on are conducted by Spanish officers. In other words, the present legislation can be satisfied simply by taking on a supernumarary skipper. To what extent will the 75 per cent. crew rule improve that situation? As my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, it is easy enough to count up 75 per cent. Communautaire nationals in the articles of the ship, but it is harder to discover whether the whole crew or just some of the crew are actually operating the vessel.
How will this apply to particular categories of crew? For example, will the radio officer and the engineers, not to mention other important crew members such as mates, bosuns, and so on, be British or Communautaire? What will be the overall character of the crew? If the loophole that my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby hinted at exists, it will be possible to have titular British members of crew whose purpose bears little relationship to the purpose of the ship and the discharge of its duties. That is a major weakness of the Bill.
I hope that when the Government find that the Bill receives an unopposed Second Reading they will let hon. Members re-examine it in Committee. We promised that it would not be opposed, but we should have the opportunity to explore the many points that have been raised. As it appears from the selection by the Chairman of Ways and Means that we are to have only one brief amendment to examine, we shall not have the opportunity to explore the ramifications of the Bill to the extent that they deserve.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The mark of the debate has been that those hon. Members who have direct experience of the problem—my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon)—welcome the Bill wholeheartedly and urge the Government to proceed with it as quickly as possible. It is significant that those hon. Members who have direct experience of the problems are those who have urged most strongly that the remaining stages of the Bill be taken tonight. I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) will bear that in mind. That does not mean that the other points that have been raised are not important. Of course they are, but there is a sense of urgency in the affected parts of the country.
With his usual acumen, my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) answered the point made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) about why we have used enabling powers. It is quite simply because the problem is complex. We know what it is and we know the areas of activity in which powers must be taken, and primary legislation is not sufficiently flexible. Enabling powers give us flexibility to meet changing circumstances. We would not be faced with the present problem if the primary legislation of 1894 gave us sufficient powers, but it did not envisage the problems of 1983. Therefore, this is the right way in which to proceed, and I am glad that other hon. Members have agreed.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bodmin and Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) raised the important subject of enforcement. It is no good passing legislation unless it is enforced. I believe that we have the means to enforce these provisions and I am not unhappy that fisheries officers should be responsible for such enforcement in the course of their normal duties.
The best analogy of our enforcement services that I use—anyone with any experience knows this—is that they should act as a form of community policing in the civilian sense. Fisheries officers are in ports when boats land and depart and the protection services of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force operate regularly at sea. Our enforcement officers will be able to deal with these provisions, and the order that we shall consider later, satisfactorily in the course of their normal duties.
The hon. Member for Truro especially asked whether we are satisfied about the definition of crew and their nationality and whether we are able to deal with it. We can deal with it, as several hon. Members said by implication in their speeches. British fishing vessels are required, by Department of Trade regulations—I refer specifically to regulation 13 of the Merchant Shipping (Crew Agreements Lists of Crew and Discharge of Seamen) (Fishing Vessels) Regulations 1972—to carry a crew list that contains, among other things, the name and address of the owner, the names and addresses of the seamen and their dates and places of birth.
To apply the nationality rule introduced by this Bill, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade is considering an amendment to the regulations to which I referred that would require nationality to be added to the crew list.

Mr. Penhaligon: Is the crew list, containing names and addresses of the crew members, prepared by the


fishing vessel skipper each time it leaves port? Is it not possible that names could appear on the crew list in order to comply with the regulations but that the members may not be abroad?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The skipper is obliged by law to fulfil those requirements. If the list is checked and he has not fulfilled the requirements, he is in breach of the regulation. If we can apply the nationality rule through the amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend, that should cover any loophole.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) asked about work permits. EC nationals do not require work permits. Possession of a work permit would not enable someone who is not an EC national to qualify as British for the purposes of the Bill, so he could not get round the provision in that way.

Mr. Prescott: Does the work permit rule apply to non-EC nationals? It would be difficult to impose a work permit rule on those who, as I described in my example, were hired outside Greece, were nationals of a non-EC country and whose boats did not land in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall examine the technicalities of the matter. I am not accustomed, in my normal duties, to deal with work permits. An EC national would not require a work permit, but a non-EC national would require a work permit to operate on that vessel. However, possession of a work permit would not enable him to get round the provisions of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchhell) asked why we are controlling only crews and not companies. I have considered that point, because I wondered about the advantages or disadvantages of backing up our crew provisions with a similar or analogous provision—for which the hon. Gentleman argued—in relation to the shared ownership of the vessel. Such a provision would be difficult to enforce, especially on a continuous basis. At present, we have power under the merchant shipping registration of ownership regulations—we have talked about brass plates—to enforce the provision. However, as hon. Members from the south-west know, that enforcement was not effective. That is why I have tried in this Bill to be bluntly practical and not inserted provisions that were ineffective in other areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Sir P. Wall) and others asked about future Spanish entry. The Spanish fleet is larger than any in the Community, and Spain's entry would have a dramatic effect. It has declined slightly in recent years because of vessels transferring to flags of convenience. There is no doubt that there would be an enormous effect if Spain entered the Community.
However, Spanish entry is a different issue. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that the effect of Spanish entry on the common fisheries policy will be thoroughly and properly explored in the negotiations. That applies not only to fishing but to horticultural produce and so on, where British interests are important. In the negotiations we shall look after those interests.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: We accept the Minister's assurance there will be hard negotiations. I hope that that will be so. If Spain enters the Community what control

will the Minister have over this practice if it is maintained? What control will there be in the Market? If Spain does not get the quotas that she wants, it is still possible for Spanish vessels to register under British nationality once Spain is in the EC and get our quotas as she is doing now?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman is anticipating a point that I shall come to. He is again dealing with a hypothetical situation. He is anticipating Spain being a member of the Community and taking advantage of that.
I shall deal with quota hopping as it was the principal point made by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). I say again, to try to enlighten the hon. Member for Grimsby as he does not always seem to follow these matters and how they happen, that there is already provision under the common fisheries policy regulations for countries that have unused quotas to operate arrangements whereby an unused quota could by agreement be transferred to another country in the course of that fishing year. In the same way, there is provision under the common fisheries policy for two countries to swap if one country wishes to give up a part of its quota to another country. Therefore, there is flexibility within the policy for doing that.
However, there is a problem. That is where the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West is right. I understand the point. I do not pretend for one moment that the Bill is designed to deal with quota hopping. Let us come back to the purpose of the Bill. It has a narrow and specific purpose to deal with countries from outside the Community, in this case Spain, taking advantage of a quota that the United Kingdom enjoys as a result of the common fisheries policy agreement. The Bill is not designed to deal with quota hopping within the Community as it is at the moment, or within an enlarged Community if Spain entered it. Quotas are already agreed in the Community. It is true that the risk of quota hopping was not so great last year when we did not have a common fisheries policy and countries were fishing according to informal quotas. There was evidence of this problem arising when Danish vessels were fishing out of Dutch ports. It is interesting that the problem arose not in the United Kingdom but in another country of the Community.
As of now, there is no evidence of that problem arising. There is an awareness that there could be a problem. Individual countries in the Community and the Commission are aware of it. However, it will arise independently from the problem with which we are now trying to deal. That problem must be dealt with on a Community basis when it arises. The problem has not arisen yet, but it could arise. There is already an awareness of it. We have to deal with it in that way. If we deal with it in that way, that will anticipate a time when the Community might be enlarged.
I come back to the specific and basic purpose of the Bill, which is to deal with the problem of third countries coming into United Kingdom waters and operating in a way that is an abuse of everything that should be right for our industry.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) raised a serious question about whether it would be possible to circumvent the Bill, and quoted an authoritative voice saying that there would be ways round


it. Hon. Members are not in a position to judge because they have not seen the Minister's order. That is one of my complaints about proceeding in this way. If it proves to be the case that there is a major loophole, will the Minister not necessarily seek to rely on subordinate legislation but undertake to come back with primary legislation?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin raised a substantial point. There are two loopholes that one can anticipate. Under clause 1(2) of the Bill the controls of fishing operations apply to fishing for sea fish in any area. That covers the point that my hon. Friend raised of fishing and landing in Spain. That point is covered if that vessel is checked. If a vessel is involved in an operation covering trans-shipment, that too, is covered. Thus, the operation of landing fish is covered. I think the Government have covered all kinds of fishing operation. If there is any other type of fishing operation that it is necessary to cover, then I shall be glad to hear of it. The Bill gives the Government a good umbrella by way of enabling legislation.
The Government are proposing to confine the order—I appreciate that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland has not seen the order—to the British fishery limits. There is nothing unusual about the British fishery limits. They are in an Act passed after Britain joined the Community. It is perfectly clear what they are. We have confined this Bill to fishery limits for the practical reasons I stated earlier. Those are the waters in which the Government believe that effective policing can take place.
The loophole is that of Spanish vessels—this is in theory—that are registered in the United Kingdom fishing beyond our 200-mile limit off the coast of Ireland and returning to land in Spain. If that became a problem we could, without going back to primary legislation—I return to the point of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland—because of the flexibility that the Bill gives us, extend our jurisdiction to all the waters of the Community if we thought that that was right. For the practical reasons that I have explained, I do not think we would need to.
Secondly, the Governments of France and the Republic of Ireland have consulted my Department regularly and have followed this legislation with interest. Some of these vessels might be fishing in the waters of those two countries. The House knows that the Government of France have been contemplating measures similar to this Bill. The Government know, from their contacts with Ireland, that they strongly support the action that we are taking. They will be watching how we progress. The Governments of France and the United Kingdom made a direct approach to the Community some months ago for action on Community lines similar to the action that Britain is taking. The Commission is examining the matter. In the light of experience, action will cover that problem.
I have attempted to answer the main points of substance that I think are of direct relevance to the Bill before the House. Other points have been raised and I appreciate why they have been raised. This is a good and fair opportunity to raise them.
I hope that the House will proceed to give the Bill a Second Reading. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Major.]

Further proceedings stood postponed, pursuant to order this day.

BRITISH FISHING BOATS [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to prohibit the fishing for and trans-shipment of sea fish by or from British fishing boats, in areas specified by order made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretaries of State respectively concerned with the sea fishing industry in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, unless those boats satisfy conditions prescribed by an order of those Ministers with respect to the nationality of members of the crew, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by those Ministers by virtue of that Act.—[Mr. Major.]

British Fishing Boats Bill

Considered in Committee, pursuant to order this day.

[MR. PAUL DEAN in the Chair]

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. We probably spent longer on Second Reading than we expected, because many serious and important matters arose during our debate. I am not pressing for any change in the agreement that has been made, but I wish to ask some questions about the selection of amendments.
If we had not proceeded immediately to the Committee stage, time would have been available for discussions with the Government, who might have decided to follow the course outlined in some Opposition amendments and might have altered the long title, which would have facilitated matters.
As the Bill has been seen to be more important in many respects than was realised by the Minister of State and others, especially in relation to the Merchant Shipping Acts, should not we enhance the Bill, which was seen only as a temporary expedient, pending an expansion of the Common Market, by enabling a discussion of the amendments that would utilise the measure to introduce means of improving the condition, security and well-being of our fishermen with the same sort of speed with which other parts of the Bill have been dealt?
Could we either suspend the sitting for a short time or make a decision now to enable amendments Nos. 1 and 2 and any associated amendments to the long title to be discussed? The whole fishing industry would endorse such a proposition.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Dean. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) has a right to raise matters that go wider than the Bill and you have to answer questions about the selection of amendments, but I must point out to the Committee and to the hon. Gentleman, who admitted that he had agreed to expedite the Bill's passage and that his remarks should not be construed as an attempt to delay the measure, that the agreement about the passage of the Bill related to the narrow purpose of the measure, which is to deal with a specific problem of third country vessels fishing in British waters off our south-west coast. If we acceded to the hon.
Gentleman's request we should be breaching the arrangements that have been made about proceedings on the Bill.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I am bound by the resolution passed by the House this afternoon. Having disposed of the money resolution, we had to proceed to the Committee stage.
It is not customary for the Chair to give reasons for the non-selection of amendments, but, if it will help the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), I can tell him that amendments Nos. 1 and 2 were not selected because they are outside the scope of the Bill. I should add that the manuscript amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has not been selected.

Mr. McNamara: I wonder, Mr. Dean, if you will bear in mind the problems of Members, who are concerned with specific issues of constituency and other interest, when they are faced on a Friday afternoon with motions appearing for the first time on the Order Paper saying that amendments, fresh schedules and new clauses to a Bill will all be taken immediately after Second Reading. With the length of time that has been given, the opportunity to discuss matters properly with outside interests is lost to Back Benchers. This measure has been on the stocks for a long time. It did not need the degree of precipitation that the Government have seen fit to give it this evening. It could easily have been spaced out over a few days and all hon. Members would have had an opportunity to say their piece and to explore the ramifications of the Bill without being pushed into this embarrassing position today.

The Second Deputy Chairman: This is not a matter for the Chair. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps I can point out that we have had a wide-ranging Second Reading debate, which has enabled hon. Members on both sides of the House to make the type of speech that they might have made in Committee had their amendments been selected.

Clause 1

RESTRICTIONS ON FISHING ETC., BY BRITISH FISHING BOATS

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Buchan: I would not have taken part in this discussion were it not for the fact that the amendments were found not to be in order. Clause 1 is the guts of the Bill. It lays down a number of means of dealing with the conditions affecting the use of fishing vessels. For that reason I wish to draw attention—we were not able to do so on Second Reading—to the amendments. The Bill will be going to another place. Between now and then, cannot the Minister think of means by which this clause can be expanded, as it deals with conditions, to introduce these concepts of safety and other matters, in the same way as he has introduced a clause about the profitability of ships? Perhaps he would consider tackling it in that way, as that would give some evidence of his intention towards the well-being of fishermen.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I wish to ask the Minister a question about clause 1(4) to which I tabled an amendent, which was not selected. The amendment would have inserted at the end of line 13 as follows:
of the Community as defined at the time of the passing of this Act.
I tabled the amendment for two reasons. The first reason is that in clause 1(4)
any other member State.
is not defined. There should be a proper definition. Secondly, given the continued threat from Spanish vessels, it is important, because of the size of the Spanish fleet, that we should define the Community as it is at the time of the passage of the measure.
If we are not able to achieve satisfactory provisions when and if Spain enters the Community, this would give us a negotiating coin, either to change the legislation then or to make alternative provision. Without that effective pressure, we shall go naked into the negotiations because we have no sanction to hold against Spain. The whole of the Act will lapse as soon as Spain enters the Community unless we have a specific restraint, as we could have had, by inserting the definition in clause 1(4):
of the Community as defined at the time of the passing of this Act.
Why was the opportunity not taken to include a definition and to restrict Spain permanently?

Mr. Prescott: Under clause 1(3) and (4) regulations will be brought to the House to deal with the nationalities of crew members. The Minister said that 75 per cent. would be EC nationals. I understand, of course, that we could not seek to discriminate between EC nationals. Presumably the 25 per cent., the remainder, can be of any nationality. Will crew members who come within the 25 per cent. require work permits? This is important in terms of North sea oil rigs. It is possible that the ship will never land or come to the United Kingdom. If that is so, can the right hon. Gentleman discriminate in favour of British labour in respect of the remaining 25 per cent. of the crew by requiring that those crew members have British work permits? If that can be done, how does the Minister envisage implementing such a proposal?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has raised a genuine issue which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I should like to ascertain exactly what the position is, and so I should prefer not to give an off-the-cuff answer.
The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) referred to an amendment that was not selected. The mere fact that it was not selected shows that it does not fall within the Bill's compass. The issue that he raised was more a matter of legal drafting than anything else. I am advised that the hon. Gentleman's amendment, even if it had been selected, would not have been necessary. I am prepared to consider the matter, and should my advice be varied there will be an opportunity in another place to table an amendment. I knew the selection that might be made and I was clear that his amendment was unnecessary.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is interesting that the Minister was able to foresee my amendment prior to its being tabled. Why is "member state" not defined? The only members mentioned previously are members of the crew. Why is it not necessary to define "member state"?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is a member state of the European Community. That is understood in legislation. I shall consider the matter and I assure the hon. Gentleman that if I have it wrong I shall take the opportunity to put it right.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) accepts that the long title cannot be enlarged to make provision for other items such as health and safety. The hon. Gentleman was, in effect, asking me to recognise the need for compliance with health and safety measures. He fairly acknowledged that this would not necessarily be effective but that it might pave the way for further measures of a wider nature. As I said on Second Reading, the purpose of the Bill is to deal with what we believe to be an abuse of the rules. As I said to the hon. Member for Grimsby, it is not my intention to add further provisions that I do not think are necessary—for example, requirements that have a bearing on the nationality of the shareholders of the company that might be involved. That which the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West proposes may be desirable, but I do not consider it to be essential. I have confined myself to provisions that are essential and practical. I do not consider it right to include the proposed additions in the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

POWERS OF BRITISH SEA-FISHERY OFFICERS IN RELATION TO BRITISH FISHING BOATS IN RESTRICTED FISHING AREAS

1 am

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 4 in page 3, line 38, at end insert
'and
(c) require the production of any document that is or may be relevant for determining the nationality of any member of the crew before the detention notice is withdrawn'.
I shall not be pressing this amendment to a Division, but it allows me to ask the Minister a question. I believe that an opportunity could be taken in clause 2(5) to obviate many of the draconian penalties provided in clause 3 if there were a simple provision requiring that the vessel be detained until all necessary documents had been produced.
It is unreasonable to assume that the crew will carry nationality documents on a fishing trip. Their documents may be at home. There are no sanctions in relation to the crew producing such documents. Sanctions are provided in respect of companies, although the Minister said that he would be unwilling for them to be used. Clause 3 allows for raids on and searches of premises other than dwelling houses. Draconian powers are provided for use against companies. They would be unnecessary if the production of documents was insisted upon when a vessel was detained. Why did the Minister not do that instead of providing such severe penalties under clause 4?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. I refer the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) to clause 2(4)(a) which gives sea-fishery officers the power to require the production of any document relevant to determining the nationality of crew members. Clause 2(5) gives the power to detain the vessel

until the notice is withdrawn by a further notice in writing served by a sea-fishery officer. I believe that the powers contained in clause 2(4)(a) and clause 3 are sufficient to enforce the Bill's provisions and to achieve what the hon. Member for Grimsby wants. I believe therefore that the amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Clause 2(4)(a) specifies that the. sea-fishery officer
may require any person onboard any such boat to produce any document he has with him on board".
My premise was that crew members may not necessarily have the documents with them on board and that they might have to be produced later. How will these documents be obtained? It will not be by raids on company premises, because the documents are not likely to be kept there.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Clause 2(4)(a) relates to any document relating to the boat or its fishing. It is wide enough to cover all the eventualities that the hon. Gentleman envisages, and therefore I reject the amendment. I shall look at the point. I do not give any undertaking to change the provision because I believe that it is adequate. It would be duplicating powers already contained in the Bill.

Mr. Mitchell: Will the Minister assure the House that clause 2(4)(a) will enable the authorities to obtain documents relating to individual crew members that they do not have on board?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In so far as I understand it, it can require these documents to be produced.

Mr. Mitchell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

POWERS OF ENTRY OF BRITISH SEA-FISHERY OFFICERS IN RELATION TO PREMISES ON LAND

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 4, at end insert
'or a justice of the peace'.
The amendment would allow a British sea fishery officer in Scotland to apply to a justice of the peace for a warrant to enter and search premises for documents relating to the commission of an offence under the terms of the Bill. Although no problem is anticipated in Scotland, in the interests of allowing such an officer to carry out his duties speedily this provision will be necessary because of the large distances that he may have to travel to reach a sheriff.
The omission of a reference to justices of the peace in the Bill as drafted was essentially an oversight, and I hope that hon. Members will agree to the amendment.

Mr. Buchan: I should like to be helpful, but I do not agree with the amendment and I require further explanation before it is accepted.
I am not conversant with the nature of justices of the peace in England and Wales. Therefore, I make no comment on clause 3(1)(a). It may be that a justice of the peace appointed by the Lord Chancellor is fully qualified, but we are talking about getting permission to search


premises. Every Scottish Member present will know about justices of the peace in Scotland. They are sometimes appointed because they served as magistrates in the old elected councillor days, sometimes because they have been councillors, and sometimes merely because of the need to have someone in the community to sign the odd document such as a passport photograph. With respect, that is not the qualification for someone giving authority to search premises, and I am astonished that the Solicitor-General for Scotland, of all people, should have come forward with such a proposal.
I assume that the hon. and learned Gentleman is particularly concerned about the islands—though perhaps not—but in Scotland we have the appointment of honorary sheriffs, who have a legal function and are lawyers. It would be extraordinary if an ordinary justice of the peace were given this power.
My wife is a justice of the peace, but she was trained to act only in a local minor court dealing with parking offences. Other than that, she tends to sign documents such as passport applications. She is a good deal better than many, but she would not consider herself qualified to empower the law to search premises.
We are dealing with a fairly important matter, and I plead with the Government to leave this amendment out. Let the hon. and learned Gentleman have another look at it, and if he thinks that he has it right, let him introduce it in the other place. I should be surprised if their Lordships, especially those with knowledge of the Scottish scene, allowed such an amendment to go through.
I have taken advice on this matter and have had a shocked response from both counsel and solicitors. They expressed the same kind of astonishment as I have. I hope that any Scottish civil servants in the Box will share that surprise. I trust that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Mr. McQuarrie: I listened with considerable interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). I am inclined to favour some of his comments. In my days in local government, I had experience of justices of the peace and their appointment. I mean no disrespect when I say that there are trade unionists and public servants in NALGO and similar bodies who are justices of the peace but who have no experience of search powers.
I hesitate to allow the phrase
or a justice of the peace
to be inserted in the Bill without more positive proof that justices of the peace who might be farmers—[Interruption.] It may be sensible, as the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland says from a sedentary position. It does not eliminate the fact that the farmer has no legal experience.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Will my hon. Friend not accept that the clause states that there has to be reasonable ground
for suspecting that an offence under section 1 of this Act has been committed".
It is only in these circumstances that the justice of the peace in Scotland or the sheriff, if he is handy, would be invited to issue such a permission. Does not my hon. Friend feel that this has narrowed the matter sufficiently to make it acceptable in the special circumstances where the sheriff court is a long distance away.

Mr. McQuarrie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The clause relates to the searching of a fishing boat. A farmer has no experience of searching a fishing boat. I believe that my hon. and learned Friend should re-examine the wording.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: There is nothing special about what is proposed. Both the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) have served on Standing Committees on Bills relating to Scotland where such powers to grant warrants have been given to justices of the peace in Scotland. This is nothing new or novel in relation to Scotland. It is a matter of oversight that the proposed amendment was not included in the Bill originally.
It does a grave injustice to justices of the peace who are much the same type of person on each side of the border to say that they are not qualified to look into the issue we are discussing. There is no great detailed legal decision involved. They have to determine whether, on the information given to them by the fisheries officer, there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed under section 1 of the Act. It is a simple safeguard. It is nothing novel in the law of Scotland.
I was surprised to hear what the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West had to say about the advice that he had been given. Far from describing what I have had to say as astonishing, I cannot believe that the advice was anything other than to the effect that what is proposed happens regularly, as under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.

Mr. Buchan: We are dealing here with fines totalling up to £50,000 and sequestration of gear. On the one hand, we are dealing with major matters and, on the other hand, we are dealing with the search for criminality leading to such fines. These are not minor matters. Perhaps the Solicitor-General for Scotland can give me examples, but none of the people whom I have consulted in Scotland knew of any comparison. I do not know the nature of justices of the peace in England, but I cannot think of any justices of the peace who would agree with the Solicitor-General for Scotland that they are qualified for this task.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: As I have already said, justices of the peace in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are much the same creatures. If the hon. Gentleman is wearing his United Kingdom hat and if he is complaining about the role of justices of the peace in this connection, he should complain about them granting warrants at all. I do not understand why he takes this attitude. With respect, I am surprised that he sees this as a point of any significance in Scotland. I have already given the hon. Gentleman numerous instances where justices of the peace grant warrants. They occur repeatedly under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act which was passed by this House, whereby warrants are granted for searches of premises undertaken by the police. I cannot go on repeating that. It is a fact. It is done regularly. I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman thinks that this is a matter of any substance.
If the Bill is to proceed and its principal aim is to be observed, it requires proper enforcement of its provisions. If there is to be proper enforcement, it is important that


searches can be undertaken speedily. It is therefore wholly appropriate that a justice of the peace in Scotland should be the person to whom the fisheries officer can go for a warrant.

Mr. Buchan: rose—

Mr. McQuarrie: I merely wished to remind my hon. and learned Friend, in spite of what I said about justices of the peace, that when we were debating the Fisheries Bill and the matter of search, we authorised justices of the peace to sign warrants. In that case, the fines were up to £50,000. That came back to my mind. So that is one example where justices of the peace were authorised to sign search warrants.

Mr. Buchan: Never trust a Tory as an ally!
I remain totally unconvinced. The Solicitor-General for Scotland asks whether I speak with a United Kingdom hat. I do not. I am speaking specifically on the Scottish front, because I know it better. I cannot speak about this matter south of the border.
I adhere to what I said because of the serious nature of the matter, involving, as it does international questions about crews. It is a matter that requires much more care. If we do nothing, I have a hunch that their Lordships will do it, and for once I would agree with them. I shall not vote against the matter because I do not carry enough votes tonight. I deplore the matter, as I am sure do others.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BILL

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.), the Motion relating to Industrial Development standing on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Secretary Lawson be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.; and that the Motion be considered in the Standing Committee in accordance with paragraph (4), and proceeded with in the House in accordance with paragraph (5), of the said Standing Order.—[Mr. Major.]

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Ordered,
That the Bill be referred to a Scottish Standing Committee—[Mr. Major.]

Charities (Value Added Tax)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Major.]

Mr. John Hannam: I am extremely grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter that is causing great concern throughout the whole country. I refer to the serious financial burden that is being imposed upon charities as a result of value added tax.
I know that in this run-up period to the Budget the Minister will not be able to give any indication tonight of the intentions of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In fact, I have to expect a Treasury stonewall in his reply, and an exposition of all the difficulties inherent in a VAT relief scheme. But I shall hope, in the time available to me, to provide up-to-date information on the extent of the burden our voluntary organisations are facing, as well as offering some answers to the arguments that are being deployed by the Treasury.
I believe that the Government accept the principle of the case for relief but have not been able to overcome the technical difficulties, with which I shall deal later. First, on this principle, should charitable organisations pay 15 per cent. on the very services which the Government implore them to provide but which, when provided by state organisations, often alongside those very charities, are free from VAT? Obviously, the answer cannot but be an unequivocal no to that question, and in various answers given by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that has been stated.
I should like in particular to refer to a sentence from the Chancellor's letter to me of 7 April last year, when he stated:
If we could have found a sustainable proposal to meet your case, we should most certainly have done so.
What we did get in last year's Budget were some welcome additions to tax relief on donations and covenants, and they were very gratefully received by the charities, although the indications now are that the actual gains to the charities are substantially less than the Treasury estimates of the time.
I should like to go back a little further into the history of the campaign, with which I have been involved since 1972, when I first joined a deputation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Anthony Barber, to highlight the particular problem which VAT would cause for charities working with disabled people. The then Chancellor recognised the possibility of difficulties, and during the Finance Bill proceedings in July 1972 he gave a commitment that, if a "serious disadvantage" to charities could be proved, he would reconsider the position.
The unfair position of charities was highlighted by the VAT relief given then to local authorities and other state bodies. The evidence continued to build up steadily over the ensuing five years, and in 1977 my right hon. and learned Friend who is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer set up a Conservative VAT task force, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Transport. One of its main recommendations—I believe it was No. 12—was that
Charities should be relieved of VAT on their non-trading activities and be able to reclaim VAT on their expenses.
The report recognised that charities have real grievances about VAT. In the previous year, the Goodman committee had come to the same conclusion. However, in the


following year, 1979, VAT was increased to 15 per cent. and the problems of the charities were doubled. I and all those involved in the campaign therefore feel strongly that we are arguing not about the principle but about the means.
Having said that, I have to record that when we discussed the matter with the Customs and Excise officials they seemed to resist any relief on the simple grounds that the VAT line must not be breached. If it were, all sorts of other cases would pour through—sports clubs, theatres and so on. That is absolute nonsense. A non-profit-making, voluntary, charitable organisation is clearly different from a commercial company. That is why, in all previous Budgets, tax concessions to charities have been given across the board without any categorisation or any definitiion of good and less good charities. We are not engaged in any argument about worthy and less worthy charities. That is a matter for the Charity Commission. I do not ask the Chancellor to apply VAT relief on a selective basis. I appreciate his reluctance to become involved in judgments about different categories of charities. Who can say whether the RNLI, for example, is more deserving then the Spastics Society or the RSPCA? Budget concessions to charities have to be made across the board.
One thing is certain. It is quite wrong that those voluntary organisations upon which the Government constantly call to supplement the State services should have to carry huge VAT burdens which their counterparts in the public sector do not have to pay. The present Government have, quite rightly, consistently stressed their commitment to the voluntary sector and the need for an effective partnership. Within that voluntary sector our charities clearly play a vital role, and their involvement in this campaign must indicate the legitimacy of their concerns.
The steering group of the Charities VAT Reform Group is made up from organisations that are widely respected. Dr. Barnardo's, the Save the Children Fund, MENCAP, and the Spastics Society all provide valuable services for children. On a different tack, there is the RNLI, which has been established as a charity for over 158 years and has saved over 110,000 lives. Many other household names are included in the reform group. I do not need to mention them all. My hon. Friend accepts their authenticity and their importance. If those organisations did not exist, the statutory sector would have to provide those services.
The VAT reform group, which last year consisted of some seven of the largest charities, this year increased its membership to over 150. The list is very impressive. Sadly, we have to recognise that VAT has become a tax on the voluntary sector, creating many anomalies.
For example, the Spastics Society runs a residential home on the same site as a local authority home in Bury St. Edmunds. The Spastics Society is penalised by 15 per cent. VAT on the services it provides in that home, whereas the local authority, on the same site, can recover its VAT payments. That is unfair and demoralising for the Spastics Society.
The cost of VAT to charities is enormous. Last year the VAT bill of the RNLI was £300,000. That is enough to build a highly sophisticated self-righting lifeboat. The Spastics Society estimates that its unrecoverable VAT bill

next year will be some £600,000. That would more than provide a purpose-built home for children with severe behavioural problems.
The case for removal of the VAT burden is immensely strong—hence the nationwide campaign and the support already given by some 200 Members of all parties to my early-day motion.
We shall probably hear more about the minuses than the pluses of the argument from my hon. Friend the Minister today. I do not cavil at that. With a Budget looming next week, I expect no other response at this stage. Nevertheless, I shall attempt to deal with some of the arguments that may be made against the concession.
All kinds of estimates of the cost have been bandied around. The Treasury's estimates ranged from £20 million to £80 million per year. No one knows the true cost. The VAT paid last year by the 114 largest charities, however, was £7 million. On that basis, the total claims could not possibly exceed £30 million per year. If the Minister argues that the figure is greater, I draw his attention to the indiscriminate grants at present made across the board in a totally haphazard manner to various voluntary organisations. The replies that I received to a series of parliamentary questions recently show that hundreds of millions of pounds are distributed in this way on a catch-as-catch-can basis. All the organisations with which I have discussed this would far rather have the VAT relief than those unreliable handouts on a year by year basis. So the cost of VAT relief need not be a significant obstacle this year.
The Customs and Excise argues that the complexity of the VAT system means that extra staff would be required. First, we are not dealing with commercial organisations that might require close supervision. If charities have to register for VAT purposes to claim repayments, they will have to keep records and make quarterly returns. That would not be an attractive proposition for those with small incomes, so, even without any de minimis qualification, only organisations with a sizeable VAT input would wish to be involved in such a system.
The Customs and Excise originally argued that there would be about 250,000 charities in the United Kingdom as a whole, but if no extra staff will be required to operate the health authority VAT refunds why is so much emphasis placed on the staff requirements in the case of the charities? The dispiriting and disquieting element in the discussions between the charities' tax experts and the Customs and Excise is the lack of statistical back-up for the general assertions about the number of charities that would claim the relief and the staff implications. The Customs and Excise figure of 250,000 charities has now dropped to 100,000, without any convincing statistical evidence being produced. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would at least give a more accurate breakdown of the figures than we have so far received from the Customs and Excise, which seems more inclined to shoot down our figures than to justify its own.
There is great nationwide interest in this debate. People who devote energy and resources to voluntary service do not understand why the Government cannot find the will to remove a totally unfair anomaly. It would be immensely gratifying if my hon. Friend could anounce today that steps are to be taken to remove the cruel VAT burden on charities, but in all honesty I do not expect him to do more than to listen to the case and to reiterate any arguments that he may have against such a move.
I hope that the Minister will not close the door on all the work and efforts of those engaged in this campaign. Certainly, I hope that he will re-examine the figures relating to the number of charities likely to register and the possible number of Customs and Excise staff needed to operate the scheme for charities. At present the Customs and Excise deals with about 400,000 repayment traders on a computer basis. The number of staff employed is about 9,500 on a system of periodic checks every two years or so. It is simply implausible that the addition of a few charities in each area throughout the country could require a large number of extra staff.
In this context, I was interested to see the written reply, given on 24 February at c.533, to a parliamentary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South(Mr. Morris), that no extra staff would be required to implement the VAT changes inherent in the use of private contractors in the NHS.
It seems strange that private contractors can be brought into the domestic and cleaning sectors of the NHS and VAT relief given without the Customs and Excise expecting to need any extra staff while it argues that a similar concession for charities would require a large number of extra staff.
I hope that I have been able to advance some evidence to show that the arguments against relief to charities are not conclusive. I hope that the evidence that is being advanced by the tax experts who are working for the Charities VAT Reform Group will be taken seriously enough by Customs and Excise for it to come back with some detailed statistical back-up information to meet the arguments that have been made.

Mr. Tony Speller: I am a signatory to the early-day motion that my hon. Friend has tabled. I hope that he will confirm that he said that when a charity is operating as a trading organisation he would not seek special relief for it, as there is no doubt that people with unpaid or low-paid staff are operating on high streets and they are in competion with legitimate traders. I hope that my hon. Friend is not trying to create unfair competition for the already hard-pressed small business sector.

Mr. Hannam: That is not the object of the relief being sought by the Charities VAT Reform Group. I accept my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. David Penhaligon: Would the hon. Gentleman differentiate between charities in social work, for which he has outlined his case superbly, and charities as the Moonies?

Mr. Hannam: That is one of the arguments that has been deployed in opposition to change. If it were applied in this case, it should have been applied last year and the year before that, when major concessions to all charities were given in the Budgets. The point about whether some charities are more deserving than others or whether they should be charities is for the Charity Commission, not us, or the Treasury, to judge.
It is important, when arguing the case for charity relief, as we have seen in previous Budgets, that we stick to the broad base of registered charities which are trading and will therefore provide services for which they should get some VAT relief. We cannot enter a discussion about individual charities and about whether they should be accepted by the Charity Commission.
The campaign has now been going for some 10 years. I hope that 1983 will mark its end, that we can achieve parity of treatment for charities and that this debate will help to achieve that result.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jock Bruce-Gardyne): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) not merely on staging the debate but on his championship of the cause of charities for many years. I might almost declare an interest in that until my present job made it impossible for me to participate adequately, I was involved in the voluntary management of a small national charity.
My hon. Friend's cause is the cause of all of us, especially on the Tory side of the House. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has tried to encourage the admirable work of the voluntary sector in successive Budgets. My hon. Friend will recall that in each Budget since we took power, my right hon. and learned Friend has made specific concessions to assist charities, both by providing for zero rating for VAT of many medical items that are distributed to and by charities and by raising the limits of permissible tax-free gifts to charities, to which my hon. Friend referred.
It is with a heavy heart that I have to expose what seem to be formidable obstacles to the concession for which my hon. Friend has argued so persuasively both tonight and in the past.
I should clear up some of the misconceptions under which some people, although not my hon. Friend, labour. First, it is not true that donations to charities suffer VAT. Secondly, in answer to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Spellar), if charities are engaged in trading, such as Oxfam with its shops, they are entitled to register for VAT and to recover their input tax attributable to those activities. The problem to which my hon. Friend referred arises only when, and to the extent that, the charities do not trade but, with the rest of us as final customers, incur VAT on the goods and services that they purchase.
I assure my hon. Friend that neither my right hon. and learned Friend nor the Government underestimate the scale of the imposition on charities. That is accepted, and since I have had responsibility for VAT at the Treasury, no other aspect of the tax has occupied more of our time and concern. However, there are four problems in the way of the concession sought by my hon. Friend—method, cost, administration and definition.
As to method, zero rating would not work. Apart from anything else, it is ruled out by the Community's sixth directive. However, there has never been any dispute that a workable method of achieving my hon. Friend's purpose is available by way of reimbursement. My hon. Friend referred to the proposals announced by my right hon. and learned Friend to reimburse the National Health Service institutions for VAT incurred on contracted-out services. He referred to that several times.
To impose VAT so that it stuck on the Health Service and on local authorities would mean simply that an increased burden would be placed on the ratepayer and the taxpayer, who finance those services. We should be imposing a tax to recover it, and that is why, from the inception of the tax, arrangements have been made to reimburse local authorities. There is no point in imposing a tax, only to recover it from another tax. What we are


doing for the National Health Service now is ensuring that a barrier to the contracting-out of subordinate services is removed. However, the relative position of hospitals and charities is unchanged.
My hon. Friend referred to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) on 24 February about the cost of manning the new arrangement for reimbursement of VAT to the Health Service. I said then that it was not expected that additional manpower would be required. My hon. Friend suggested that if that were true for the Health Service there was no reason why it should not be true for charities. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Only about 20 Health Service bodies are involved in the arrangements for hospitals, all of which have already registered for VAT. Charities do not account for VAT at present, unless they are traders, when the problem does not arise, and there are tens of thousands of charities.
That brings me to numbers, which my hon. Friend mentioned. There is a conflict of evidence between the Charities VAT Reform Group and Customs and Excise about numbers. I do not want to get bogged down in them in the time available. In any case, the figures are bound to be a matter of speculation. It is impossible to tell how many institutions would find it desirable to seek to recover their VAT if a reimbursement scheme were available.
I have had representations from parish councils, for which the problem is the opposite way round. They have been campaigning against the imposition of VAT running to £9–15 over several years. Therefore, I am afraid that in that area the de minimis rule can be low in people's estimation.
All that I can say is that the figure that my hon. Friend quoted as the latest estimate by Customs and Excise of 100,000 potential charity claimants does not pretend to be anything other than guesswork. It is related to the returns of charities to the Inland Revenue. The Inland Revenue has to check the fiscal status of charities. The theory is that that provides a more reliable guide than the Charity Commission can provide because the charities do not have to register with the Charity Commission. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend knows, the figures do not cover Scotland and Ireland or the Churches, which would inevitably demand parity of treatment in this area.
I should not like to bandy figures with my hon. Friend. All one can say is that they would be likely to run into many tens of thousands of institutions seeking reimbursement if it were provided. For the same reason we cannot judge what the cost of the concession might be. All one can say is that it would be unlikely if it did not run into

several tens of millions of pounds. That revenue would have to come from somewhere else, either from other payees of tax or from other parts of the tax system.
While those are serious difficulties, I have to say to my hon. Friend that if those were the only difficulties it would be possible to accept the substantial sum of revenue involved and additional burdens of administration. All those things are possible to accept if the cause is good enough. I concede to my hon. Friend that his cause is good enough. The ultimate stumbling block, to which there is no answer at present, is definition.
Virtually all the direct tax concessions made to charities, many of them by my right hon. and learned Friend, have had a value determined by voluntary financial support. VAT reimbursement would not. Its value would depend on the nature of the charity's spending, and that alone. I believe that that would often strike the general public as indefensible.
I shall give my hon. Friend an example, which is perhaps fanciful but by no means inconceivable. If I chose to give my money to a charity providing mink-lined kennels for overweight lapdogs and my hon. Friend chose to give his money to the Salvation Army, both gifts would attract the same tax relief. That is indefensible. While we are both giving from our own pockets of our own free will, notwithstanding the fact that to most people my hon. Friend's choice would seem excellent and mine absurd, it is reasonable that both donations should receive common tax treatment. However, relatively speaking, my kennels would benefit more than would the Salvation Army from the VAT concession. I do not think that that would strike most taxpayers as sensible or defensible. I come to the point that my hon. Friend touched upon. Inevitably such random aid would add mightily to the demands for VAT concessions in favour of a host of other causes that would seem far more deserving not just to their promoters but to most of the population than would some charities that were receiving the concession.
I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. and learned Friend will continue to weigh up carefully all the powerful arguments presented to him, not least by my hon. Friend, in support of this cause. We recognise the strong feelings that lie behind it. I only appeal to my hon. Friend to recognise the real difficulties that would arise from the dissemination of a tax benefit indiscriminately as regards the purpose of the charity that received it. However, in the end, as my hon. Friend knows, and as I think he foresaw, I am afraid that I cannot anticipate my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget judgment.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at ten minutes to Two o'clock.